Review of W. (2008) by Remote G — 27 Jan 2011

By David Hutchinson for remotegoat on 17/11/08.

W. - the middle initial of the man currently deemed as the most powerful man in the world, is an exploration into the life and times of George W. Bush before and after he took hold of the White House. Oliver Stone's biographical look at the man holding the reins to the world's biggest superpower is both premature, and wildly entertaining as the defining moments of the native Texan's life is played out by a chorus of harmonious actors.

The film begins with George W. Bush in office, played excellently by Josh Brolin, and flicks back and forth between his time in office, and the defining moments that led him to Capitol Hill. The film depicts the events that led up to the Iraq war and how this defined not only George W. Bush's career in office, but also his rocky relationship with his father George Bush, former president.

The cast are colourful and vivid in their portrayals of the big gun's in Washington. First prize goes to Thandie Newton who turned in a stunning portrayal of US Seretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Both accurate and bold in her choices, she captured the irrelevance and cowardice this senior member of the administration demonstrated in her career in office.

The film is very biographical,especially examining the relationship between the Bush father and son. The film portrays George W. Bush's ambitions to make waves in the political world as being entirely motivated by a need to please his father, and gain approval over his brother, the Florida Governer Jed Bush. This relationship pathes the narrative, and demonstrates that even the most powerful men in the world feel the need to prove themselves, and allow personal ambition to, at times, cloud their judgement.

This message, however, became a little too sympathetic of the outgoing president than I could stomach. Whilst Stone manages to capture a balanced view of George W. Bush, when many would fall into a full scale ridicule of the man, I couldn't help but feel a little uneasy coming out of the cinema with a new found sympathy towards a man who, amongst other things, has dragged the Middle East into a bitter conflict over false intelligence and lies.

Some may view this aspect of the film as admirable, and would credit Stone on his ability to shift opinions of the most unpopular president in living history, but I felt a little cheated and guilty at feeling pity for a man who has made some fatal errors in judgment over his two term presidency.

All aside, this film is a strong piece of historical cinema (all be it a premature one).

Had it waited just a few months longer for a particular Illinois Senator to take the reins, many could hail Stone's film as a celebration of the old, and a sigh of relief at the new.