W. Another Oliver Stone gem

[George Bellefontaine]

Watched it on Blu-ray last night. Covers George W. Bush from his university days up to when he became President and to the events leading up to the attack on Iraq. I read the book entitled W. so I was familiar with a lot of what George W was all about. Josh Brolin does a magnificent job portraying the 43rd President of the United States. He has his mannerisms and speech down pat and at times you'd swear you were looking at the real Bush. Also, Richard Dreyfus was great as the thorny Dick Cheney.

I liked this Stone film better than I did Nixon and recommend it to anyone who is interetested in biographies of politicans. I bought it on Blu-ray but there is nothing special about the PQ. I would have enjoyed it just as much, and saved myself a few bucks by getting it on standard dvd. Anyway, I'm glad I bought it as it's the kind of film I like to rewatch when the right mood hits me.

[Alaric]

biographies of politicans

Hi , George! :later: With utmost respect , did you mistake an Oliver Stone movie for a factual artifact? Mr. Stone seems to be a complete nutjob. Fine director , but nuckin futz. I think I'd look at that film as a parody at best , a political hatchet job at worst.
Having whined about all that , entertainment is what movies are about , and I trust your take on that score. :T

[Hdale85]

I felt it seemed to portray him rather accurately as well. It didn't seem like a parody at all but who knows?

[Alaric]

I'm guessing each person's take on the film will reflect already held opinions-just like everything else in life.

[Hdale85]

Well, in actuality I kind of had a different view of him before the film And I'm not saying that the movie gives him a bad image. Honestly it kind of explains things I guess? Really I'm not sure if it was meant to be factual or not but I was just saying it seemed to portray his personality rather well and I don't mean that in a bad sense.

[scarpi]

Don't take as fact anything you read or watch. Gather all the information you can from numerous sources and then make your own opinion. And as they say in X-files "trust no one".

[Hdale85]

Yeah like I said I wasn't really taking it in as fact. The reason I don't see it as a parody is because it's not really a funny movie. There really isn't anything in the movie to suggest that it is.

[George Bellefontaine]

Hi , George! :later: With utmost respect , did you mistake an Oliver Stone movie for a factual artifact? Mr. Stone seems to be a complete nutjob. Fine director , but nuckin futz. I think I'd look at that film as a parody at best , a political hatchet job at worst.

Actually, I didn't find it to be a parody or ahatchet job. There were times when I actually felt sorry for him and the way he was listening to the wrong people.

I also feel the film is fairly accurate. Much of what I read in the book W, by journalist Elizabeth Mitchell, is refelected in Stone's film. And if you read the notes and acknowledgements in the Mitchell book, I think you'd feel that she was honest and forthright in what she wrote about George W.

As for Oliver Stone, well it seems you either love him or hate him. I happen to like his work, nutty stuff and all...

[Chris D]

I haven't seen this movie. As for Oliver Stone, I find his previous works to be a bit "off" in recreating history. One notable exception is his 9/11 work, "World Trade Center". I found that one very poignant, with little to pretty much NO political commentary in the portrayal.

[George Bellefontaine]

I haven't seen this movie. As for Oliver Stone, I find his previous works to be a bit "off" in recreating history.

I would agree, especially in the case of JFK, but in W. he is using much of the factual material from the biographical book of the same name by Elizabeth Mitchell. If anything, Stone's W. fails to go into the depth of the man as did the book's author. But then, he only had 2 hours so much had to be left out. But, yes, Stone must put his trademark on things and there are moments in the film where I'm sure artistic license was used, and when Stone uses artistic licence, you can be sure it will be far out there.

[impala454]

Is the "W" book that Mitchell wrote a true biography? The only one I see by her on amazon is "W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty", and with that title it can't possibly be unbiased. Though I doubt any president's biography (unless it's an auto) can be unbiased. Not to mention I'm sure there's a lot of goings on behind the scenes that nobody knows about that would contribute greatly to the life of a president.

[Ovation]

As an historian, I can say, with a significant degree of confidence, that biographies of major political leaders that are not begun by authors, at minimum, at least a decade after they are no longer in office (two decades or more are better, as much more material is declassified), are plagued with too much speculation and omissions. There are individual exceptions to this "rule" but they are few and far between. As for "autobiographies" (in quotations because many are ghost-written), they are the MOST biased and least reliable of all. Their primary usefulness is for providing insight into how the authors thought of themselves--NOT for accurate, dispassionate accounts of their life stories.

I have a particular interest in Oliver Stone's films as he is a self-proclaimed "historian" (he has no formal training in the profession and his "definition" of what constitutes "history" is, well, unorthodox) and, for better or worse, his films exercise influence over people's perceptions of a number of historical events and topics. As a filmmaker, he is very talented (JFK is one of the best fictional political thrillers on film--its relationship with actual history, on the other hand, is very tenuous). As an "historian", he provides a useful service, though not necessarily in the way he likely believes. Having his name attached to an historical topic to be put on film almost guarantees a heightened interest and discussion of the topic by the general public, which can be good. However, without the assiduous criticism by professional historians as a counterpoint, his films present a distorted view of history that is always present to some degree in historical feature films, but to a much greater degree. Thirteen Days (about the Cuban Missile Crisis and NOT a Stone film) is an example of an historical feature film that also has some distortions, but remains far closer to what actually happened than JFK, for example.

Ultimately, Stone's films are almost always well-made, often entertaining and raise awareness of historical issues. But even among the quite different set of criteria for historical feature films in relation to more traditional forms of historical presentation that historians allow for, his films frequently exaggerate distortions to make an unsubtle point. It is that tendency that is unfortunate, from my professional view. As a movie-goer, those same shortcomings often make for greater entertainment. Ordinarily, I would not care so much, except for Stone's self-proclaimed status as "historian". Roger Donaldson, the director of Thirteen Days, makes no such grandiose claims for his film, and yet it is much closer to reality than a number of Stone's films.

Having said all that, I've read and heard that W. is remarkably balanced and restrained for a Stone film and I look forward to seeing it. If this is true, I hope it signals a level of subtlety and maturity in Stone when it comes to tackling history.

[George Bellefontaine]

Is the "W" book that Mitchell wrote a true biography? The only one I see by her on amazon is "W: Revenge of the Bush Dynasty", and with that title it can't possibly be unbiased.

Unbiased ? Probably not. She certianly doesn't pull any punches. And since the book deals a great deal with W's early years, when he was certianly a bad boy, there is stuff in the book that kinder authors may have left out. And like the book, Stone did pay a lot of attention to W's youthful bad side, but I also felt he tried to show some of the reasons why he became the man he was, as well as the effort it took W to beat the devil, so to speak, and become a born again christian.

[bigburner]

As an historian, I can say, with a significant degree of confidence, that biographies of major political leaders that are not begun by authors, at minimum, at least a decade after they are no longer in office (two decades or more are better, as much more material is declassified), are plagued with too much speculation and omissions. There are individual exceptions to this "rule" but they are few and far between. As for "autobiographies" (in quotations because many are ghost-written), they are the MOST biased and least reliable of all. Their primary usefulness is for providing insight into how the authors thought of themselves--NOT for accurate, dispassionate accounts of their life stories.

I have a particular interest in Oliver Stone's films as he is a self-proclaimed "historian" (he has no formal training in the profession and his "definition" of what constitutes "history" is, well, unorthodox) and, for better or worse, his films exercise influence over people's perceptions of a number of historical events and topics. As a filmmaker, he is very talented (JFK is one of the best fictional political thrillers on film--its relationship with actual history, on the other hand, is very tenuous). As an "historian", he provides a useful service, though not necessarily in the way he likely believes. Having his name attached to an historical topic to be put on film almost guarantees a heightened interest and discussion of the topic by the general public, which can be good. However, without the assiduous criticism by professional historians as a counterpoint, his films present a distorted view of history that is always present to some degree in historical feature films, but to a much greater degree. Thirteen Days (about the Cuban Missile Crisis and NOT a Stone film) is an example of an historical feature film that also has some distortions, but remains far closer to what actually happened than JFK, for example.

Ultimately, Stone's films are almost always well-made, often entertaining and raise awareness of historical issues. But even among the quite different set of criteria for historical feature films in relation to more traditional forms of historical presentation that historians allow for, his films frequently exaggerate distortions to make an unsubtle point. It is that tendency that is unfortunate, from my professional view. As a movie-goer, those same shortcomings often make for greater entertainment. Ordinarily, I would not care so much, except for Stone's self-proclaimed status as "historian". Roger Donaldson, the director of Thirteen Days, makes no such grandiose claims for his film, and yet it is much closer to reality than a number of Stone's films.

Having said all that, I've read and heard that W. is remarkably balanced and restrained for a Stone film and I look forward to seeing it. If this is true, I hope it signals a level of subtlety and maturity in Stone when it comes to tackling history.

Thank you Ovation, that's an insightful post.

Nigel.

[wkhanna]

Thank you Ovation, that's an insightful post.

Nigel.

Agreed!

V interesting perspective.

[Johnloudb]

Thank you Ovation, that's an insightful post.

Nigel.

Agreed!

V interesting perspective.

I'll third that. :T I'd like to add that while the movie Amadeus was far from historically accurate, I'm very glad it was made. It made Mozart's music all the more interesting and introduced it to a wider population. Although, like you mention, it can also give many the wrong idea about the person.

[impala454]

That does make a lot of sense. Often times it seems the legacy of famous people in history tends to change over time.

[Chris D]

Right--on the side topic, Amadeus is an OUTSTANDING film. Very obvious, having won so many Academy Awards. Very deep.

[Johnloudb]

Right--on the side topic, Amadeus is an OUTSTANDING film. Very obvious, having won so many Academy Awards. Very deep.

Thanks Chris, I'll second that! I kind of left that out.

[Burke Strickland]

Right--on the side topic, Amadeus is an OUTSTANDING film. Very obvious, having won so many Academy Awards. Very deep.

Let's make the same point with a different title: "Titanic is an OUTSTANDING film. Very obvious, having won so many Academy Awards. Very deep."

OK, the ship ended up deep, but the movie isn't. Point? Not even 11 Academy Awards guarantee that a movie is truly outstanding.

Another point: the BluRay disk of Amadeus does NOT present the movie that won all the awards. It is the "director's cut" which has been bloated with unnecessary scenes which supposedly "fill in the background" regarding character relationships, but in too many cases, come off like Saturday Night Live parodies of the rest of the material, and in every case, kills the pace of the narrative.

I think the original theatrical cut of Amadeus truly is an outstanding movie (as entertainment -- it isn't an historical documentary), well worth the BluRay treatment. I'm not planning to waste more of my money on the "director's cut", having been burned once already with the DVD.

As for "W"... maybe my first BluRay (or DVD) rental.

[Chris D]

Good point, Burke.