"When I was coming up, it was a dangerous world, and you knew exactly who they were. It was us versus them, and it was clear who the them was. Today we're not so sure who they are, but we know they're there."
It's as if the irony was lost on none other than Oliver Stone. Somehow, he has managed to make a film about President George W. Bush -- specifically, one that focuses on the military action taken in Iraq during his presidency -- and he's gone into it woefully unprepared. Perhaps there's some strange sort of poetic justice at work here. Either that or "W." just isn't a very good film.
Clearly, there's a great story to be told here. There are few presidents as compelling and even fewer as controversial as Bush, and given the wealth of great investigative journalism done about the Bush administration in recent years, there's plenty of material to work with. But this script, written chiefly by Stanley Weiser with some contributions from Stone, is more than a little lacking in the substance one would expect in a film made by the man who brought us "Nixon" (1995) and "JFK" (1991).
Weiser has claimed that extensive research went into the writing of "W.," but not much of it shows. The film touches on all of the major events of the president's adult life: his education (or lack thereof) at Yale, his slow rise to political stardom and the muddled affairs that led to the corruption of his administration. But rather than explore these episodes in real depth, Weiser stalls. The result is part-Bush, part-Bushisms.
America knows them all too well by now. The silly little malapropism-laden presidential quotes have been featured prominently in greeting cards, on "Saturday Night Live" sketches and in countless chain e-mails for eight years: "They mis-underestimated me," "Is our children learning?" "Fool me -- you can't get fooled again." By now, they're a bit old-hat, but not only does Weiser bring them back, he even tries to wrap a movie script around them.
"W." attempts to weave seamlessly back and forth between the serious drama of a man controlling the fate of the civilized world and the hilarious tale of a man who can't watch a football game without choking on a pretzel. The film comes out looking more confused than its subject at an economic summit. What is "W." -- tragedy, history or comedy? Weiser doesn't seem to know. And if Weiser doesn't know, how can Stone? How, for that matter, can Josh Brolin?
Brolin, whose stock has been on the rise since his critically acclaimed work in "No Country for Old Men" (2007) and "American Gangster" (2007), plays the president, and his performance is a good one although imbalanced at times. He portrays Bush as a simple man, one who picks the lettuce out of his bologna sandwiches and who happens to really like baseball. At times he drinks a little much; at times he relies a little heavily on his faith. This, in essence, is our president. It's never entirely clear whether Brolin is trying to be funny in his portrayal or if he's going for a realistic Bush. But that confusion is hardly his fault.
The stronger performances come from the men portraying Bush's closest allies: James Cromwell is Oscar-worthy as Bush's father, the former president, while the depictions of Dick Cheney (played by Richard Dreyfuss) and Colin Powell (Jeffrey Wright) are also brilliant. The film is at its best when it explores the administration's devious underbelly. Perhaps the best scene is the heated war-room debate between the steadfast Cheney and the dissenting Powell. But there simply aren't enough scenes like that one. "W." is too simple to really sink its teeth into the nuances of how the Bush presidency was steered astray.
What most people expected from "W." was a polarizing film: The liberal viewers would love it, the conservatives would hate it and those in between would turn to reviews like this one to steer them off the fence. But in reality, that may not be the case. Conservatives will hate it, yes -- no one likes to see their party leader portrayed as simple-minded, passive and generally careless about even his most important actions. But those on the left side of the aisle may not be satisfied, either.
Shouldn't there be more? It's amazing that Stone can waste 175 minutes (207 in his final cut) on Colin Farrell in "Alexander" (2004) but can barely manage to squeeze more than two hours out of a uniquely divisive two-term American president. Stone, the ambitious leftist that he is, owes his viewers more. As impossible as it may seem, it appears that Stone has mis-underestimated the depth of his own subject.
