There aren’t many US presidents it would be fitting to make a biopic about while they are still in office. With most you need a few years for the dust to settle and then you can refresh everyone’s memory. But President Bush is one of those rare cases where I think it’s best to make the film now, to strike while the iron’s hot. It’s just a shame, then, that not all is done to paint a complete portrait of the man in this movie, although you can’t exactly blame one for trying.
W. is a biopic about the forty-third President of the United States, George W. Bush. It spans the years from when he was a young man trying to figure out his life through a portion of his presidency.
As unpopular as President Bush is with people across the world, there’s no denying the man has had an interesting life. From his trouble with his father to his alcohol abuse to his foray into politics, the man's tale warrants telling. And who else would take on such a project than the ever-controversial Oliver Stone? The man is notorious for tackling hot subjects, and W. is his third go-round telling the story of a US president (the previous two being JFK and Nixon). And the main problem with this piece is that it doesn’t succeed in painting a complete portrait of its subject. It jumps through time, often in a back and forth fashion, trying to get as much of Bush’s life on screen as possible. But it feels simultaneously like it’s trying to do too much and achieving too little. It feels more like scenes from the man’s life have been chosen to back up what Stone is trying to say rather than depicting a true portrayal of his life.
There’s no doubting the swagger and charm that President Bush has about him, however bad a quality that may be for a leader of a country. Thus you’d expect a film about the man to have a kind of lighthearted side to it. But where W. gets it wrong is it often is too lighthearted, too silly, and often comes off as more parody than re-enactment. For example, when Bush is having lunch with Cheney the dialogue is a bit on the hokey side. Now of course there’s a great deal of speculation going on in the film about what went on behind closed doors, for instance in his verbal conflicts with his father, but the film treats the man, the story, and particularly those "behind-the-scenes" moments almost like a joke. If the story calls for a certain zaniness, then so be it, but the way this plays out it’s as if the whole thing is something to laugh at rather than be taken in by.
Now there’s absolutely no question that Josh Brolin is brilliant as Bush. It’s clear he’s put the work in to get the mannerisms and recognisable attributes of the President down to a T. The only real distinguishable difference is that Brolin is much better looking than Bush is, but it’s forgivable when everything else is as spot on. Brolin will likely get an Oscar nomination for his performance here and I can say with confidence that it’s warranted. Unfortunately apart from Brolin (and, perhaps, you could stretch to Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush) everyone else portraying a real life person comes off as impersonation rather than embodiment. Brolin is Bush here, whereas people like Jeffrey Wright (as Colin Powell), Toby Jones (as Karl Rove), Richard Dreyfuss (as Vice President Dick Cheney), and especially Thandie Newton (as Condoleezza Rice) just come off as if they’re impersonating these people rather than being them. As far as I’m concerned this was a crucial area for W. to get right, and perhaps in retrospect there’s nothing that could have been done to avoid this.
Article comments