Quick Review: "W."

To me an Oliver Stone film usually is a sign of trouble. I thought "Platoon" was great, but he crossed a terrible historical line with "J.F.K." in that it completely warped what are the more common historical findings of the 1963 Kennedy assassination, and an entire generation bought it. I haven't quite forgiven him to yet.

Needless to say, we all know "W." will not be a film the Bush family will want to screen for family gatherings. We know the liberal director will be making his jabs at the former president. Here we get to see the long-rumored family split between son and father which may have had an impact on how W. governs. We also see presidential discussions that show how the war was built on faulty evidence and visions of regional domination. It is not pretty. Surprised?

However, first, actor Josh Brolin's portrayal of George W. Bush is so on the mark that it is worth the price of a rental to see it. Second, Stone, perhaps maturing a bit, has admitted and says again on extras here that it may not be completely accurate, as some conversations had to be constructed, but it is what he feels may be a close representation of what Bush's life was like. He is quick to admit in the commentary and other materials when literary license has been taken for the sake of better storytelling (leaving out a number of advisers in meetings to par down the number of people, re-arranging time, etc).

Most astounding is a supplementary DVD-ROM segment that you use on your computer to get articles and book quotes to back up incidents depicted in the movie, and there are a number of them. Stone has obviously read up well on his subject, and I have to admit to hearing about some of these incidents myself. I've never seen a movie on DVD that has been backed up with footnotes and sources like this, and I have to admit it is most refreshing. Movies and true history shall never completely meet thanks to the problem of storytelling or prejudices. Even though Stone once went so over the line that even I couldn't ignore it, he seems to set a standard here that would be refreshing if followed by other directors of historical films. Moreover, the reading in these articles even without the film are interesting, such as depictions of Bush's youthful arrests and his near-fight with his father.

Finally, Stone appears to have mellowed somewhat. Sure, he notes that he doesn't not agree with the Bush policies -- and gets in a few jabs on the commentary at Reagan and, of course, mentions Vietnam in passing, showing some of the old anger still there. Still, Oliver notes Bush as a personality is likeable and seems to like Laura Bush's influence on the man. He notes Bush did overcome problems and finally proved a success in his father's eyes in the form of a campaign advisor, and you can't help but be happy for him, even with the Willie Horton ads thrown in for emphasis.

Stone does not seem to doubt that Bush had some type of spiritual awakening and reformed himself on booze and other youthful problems. He seems to admire that. He even admires other Christians he has met, even though he did not appear to be a convert to private pleadings. But he tries to give some respect to those moments, although he seems bewildered by the president's constant praying at staff meetings. (Granted, though, that is unusual as a custom.)

Stone finds Bush somewhat a problem in general, one not really qualified, scarred emotionally, unable to empathize with others. Then again, you do seem to take some joy when Bush gives comeuppance to Vice President Dick Chaney and others who served the president poorly at times or who wanted to be in charge. Stone thinks others, such as Collin Powell, deserve some blame, according to his commentary. Bush is not really an evil man in Stone's hands, as he is one who was not equipped to be in place, becoming a victim of a final, belated success which unraveled into a failure of policy.

"W." will always be seen as a hit at Bush by a liberal director, but if the history books confirm many of these details...and, I fear, they may...then we may see this in the future as quite a record of a Shakespearean tragedy gone awry on the world stage. Only time will tell. For his part, Stone has done his best to give us an early peak at history and to back up his story. No matter how it ends, though, we know it ends in tragedy, for the man depicted has made his mark in history. It is a sad story, and any historical redemption, Harry Truman-style, may be very late in coming, indeed.