What? George W. Bush is not the Devil?

Oliver Stone’s W. shows that Dubya is just a guy

By Dana Stewart
Published: October 21st, 2008 | 10:00pm

There exists a phenomenon, common amongst liberals for the past term of the Bush presidency, of gleefully demonizing George W. Bush. That is to say, they take the knee-jerk position of “He’s the Devil!” because they virulently disagree with his politics. It’s fun, I suppose, to caricature this president (and he does make it exceedingly easy). But as any historian will tell you, the president always stands for something larger, and ignoring the nuances of an administration’s history does all sides a disservice. Bush 43 is also, we must agree, a human man with a past and a future that follow the same rules of time and physics as the rest of us. He’s not the Devil. He’s just a guy.

One would hope that all those happy demonizers will go to see Oliver Stone’s new movie, simply titled W. Ever the source of controversy, Stone made this movie in less than 50 days in order to get it out before the election, after another project he was working on abruptly fell through. Never before has a biopic been released of a president while they are still in office, which is evidence of Stone’s appetite for controversy as well as, perhaps, Bush’s current state of utter irrelevancy as president. W. adds to the long list of Stone’s films that cut straight into the heart of American politics; there’s the conspiracy-theory-laden JFK, his dark portrait of Nixon that earned accolades for Sir Anthony Hopkins, as well as two highly influential films on the Vietnam War (in which Stone earned a Purple Heart for his service), Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July.

As a testament to his star-making and controversy-generating capability, Stone was able to amass a stellar cast to make his two-month movie. Essential, of course, is the casting of the president, and the film would never have succeeded without the seamless performance of Josh Brolin as George W. Bush. Brolin himself has said he struggled with the decision to play GWB, due to his own political differences with the man. What swayed him is that this is, truly, the story of a man, in the classic tradition of a biopic. This is no propagandistic Michael Moore piece — it’s certainly not the hack-job many in the media were predicting. By the end, we see how illustrative it is to consider GWB as a man, apart from his presidency, and what a fascinating light that casts on history and current events.

By the end of the movie, we have seen our current president change from a party-hearty frat boy, to a confused and somewhat depressed middle-aged alcoholic, to an uber-confident, born-again Christian who also happens to be Leader of the Free World. We see him as a young Yaley, who was great at two things and two things only: partying and charming. As incarnated by Brolin, the 30-something Bush is good-looking, funny, and definitely not evil incarnate. He does, however, have serious Daddy Issues: There’s actually a scene in W. where Bush Sr. says to Bush Jr.: “I’m extremely disappointed in you.” According to Stone’s film, this would appear to be the largest weight Bush has to carry for the rest of his life. There’s a sweet portrayal of the courtship between GWB and the future First Lady Laura, which adds to the resulting sympathetic, humanistic depiction of Bush.

To be fair, Stone did go out of his way to make GWB appear unintelligent, and at worst callous and ignorant. I believe Scott McClellan (former White House Press Secretary for Bush, as he said on TheDailyBeast.com) when he says that Bush’s visits to wounded troops were almost the opposite of how they appear in the film: that Bush was genuinely affected and saddened by these difficult trips. Many have said Stone’s portrayal of the inner machinations of the Bush family is so exaggerated as to be offensive, an aspect of W. that does feel like a bit of an uncomfortable reach. The film also makes a one-dimensional mockery of Condoleezza Rice, of whom I’m sure a more interesting, nuanced depiction could be drawn.

Throughout, the film has an air of incredulity, as in, “Is this actually possible? Is it possible that this frat guy, this Good Ol’ Boy, is actually president?” The incredulity will not fade, for some time to come I would imagine, but the significance of Stone’s film is not political — it’s societal. This film does nothing to improve Bush’s image as president, but it accomplishes the important task of contextualizing that presidency, giving it a place within the fabric of our history and societal makeup. Meaning, this guy didn’t come from nowhere, and it’s more than likely he was manipulated by dark, jaded, conservative politicians who seized upon his presidency as an opportunity to try everything they’ve been stopped from doing before, usually by presidents with a bit more intellectual fortitude than Bush 43.

W. is clearly trying to fit in the vein of Kubrick’s masterpiece, Dr. Strangelove. Stone has said that this was partly his aim, and it’s true the films have some pretty obvious parallels (both attacking a hot issue of the day head-on, this time the GWB legacy as opposed to the Cold War threat of nuclear war; both use irreverent music to score very serious subjects, achieving an ironic, post-modern perspective). Visually, it looks more like Any Given Sunday than any other previous Stone movie. Some of the Bush-in-a-baseball-stadium scenery looks positively lifted from Sunday. As a film, it’s pretty good, maybe a seven out of 10.

But as a part of American political discourse, W. is far more effective. Its obvious audience — Bush-bashers hungry for more Schadenfreude during the wane of his presidency — is in for a surprise. The nuance in W. could do wonders for the most virulently partisan among us, as I think all would agree that more context, and less name-calling would be welcomed in 21st century America. Also significant, the film also gives obvious lesson to those who would like the story of W. to be a singular one; if you watch W. closely enough, it becomes clear how we could avoid this ever happening again.