What Would W. Do?

Today, it is hard to imagine a time when George W. Bush was actually popular. However, W. opens in this long-gone era, when the President of the United States was genuinely admired by the American people. This short period between the horror of 9/11 and the dawning of the Iraq War served as a pivotal anchor in the film: the only time when poor George Jr. had the respect of the nation that he so dearly loved.

At the urging of his cabinet of advisors, including the over-bearing Dick Cheney (played by Richard Dreyfuss) and the creepy, toad-like Karl Rove (played by Toby Jones ), Bush (played by John Brolin) makes the decision to use the now-infamous phrase “axis of evil” in a public address. It is at this critical point that the stage is set for the start of one of the most controversial wars in American history, and Bush’s character is made into a mere puppet, who is at the complete mercy of the manipulative people surrounding him.

After this scene, the film rewinds to one of its flashbacks of Bush’s past. It shows the future President being hazed upon his admission to a fraternity at Yale, and drinking disturbing, potentially dangerous amounts of alcohol, much to the amusement of those around him. It is also made clear in this scene that he is at the prestigious university not because of his academic accomplishments, but because of the clout that comes with his surname. Because the teenage Bush is still played by Brolin, the age difference between him and the rest of the actors in the scene makes it seem almost comical. Why is a forty-something man being picked on by twenty-something college boys?

The film then fast-forwards to Bush in the Oval Office, but again flashes back to his younger years. The constant back and forth between time periods in his life makes the film confusing and disorganized. In addition, director Oliver Stone’s choices of events to focus on in the film were often questionable. While important events in Bush’s life, such as the 2000 election and September 11th were mentioned only in passing, Stone devoted several minutes to show Bush choking on a pretzel in super slow motion.

I also took issue with Stone’s portrayal of female characters. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (played by Thandie Newton) is shown as a brainless twit who flutters around Bush agreeing with everything he says, apparently unable to come up with an original thought of her own. First Lady Laura Bush (played by Elizabeth Banks) is portrayed as the stereotypical ‘50s housewife, whose role is to stay in the home, mind the children, and cater to her husband’s every whim.

Stone also chose to play up several other stereotypes in the film. By emphasizing Bush’s love of shootin’, smokin’, drinkin’ and prayin’ in his Texas hometown, he is painting him as the quintessential Southern red-neck conservative, who chooses to cling to his religion and his gun instead of being open-minded and making informed decisions.

Within the first few minutes of the film, Stone’s intentions of making Bush look like a complete idiot become painfully obvious. He paints him as a lazy, unintelligent adolescent who gets his power from the family name, rather than from hard work and personal integrity.

Unfortunately, Stone’s desire to release the film before the November presidential election overpowered his desire to make a film of substance. He uses the same attacks on Bush over and over, causing the dialogue to become increasingly repetitive. Because of this, the film only scratches the surface of Bush’s character, rather then delving deep into his personal history or closely examining his executive decisions. This leaves the movie in cinematic limbo. There was not enough defamation of Bush to make it a true character scorching, yet it was too biased to be considered an honest examination of his presidency. The result is a tepid film that blurs the line between fact and fiction, but does not make the effort to come to an actual conclusion about its subject.