The large cast of “W.” faces the daunting task of playing characters with prominent real-life counterparts. The faces of the real George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and the other usual suspects of Bush’s administration are all too fresh in our minds; it is thus extremely difficult to see the actors as anything more than impersonators. Indeed, the humor in “W.” at times undermines the film’s reality, as certain scenes begin to feel dangerously similar to a Saturday Night Live sketch (it is unfortunate that “W.” was released so close to Tina Fey’s popular Sarah Palin impression on SNL). The actors, to varying degrees, successfully embody their characters. Thandie Newton’s performance as Condolezza Rice feels a little too forced, while James Cromwell is unable to register any emotion but fraternal exasperation as George Bush Sr. However, Elizabeth Banks admirably performs a sympathetic portrayal of Laura Bush, and I dare viewers to find any difference between the real Dick Cheney and Richard Dreyfuss. The star of the show is unquestionably Josh Brolin. Overlooked in awards season for his wonderful turn in “No Country for Old Men” last year, Brolin has set this year’s early standard for leading men. He not only perfectly imitates Bush’s strut and Texan drawl, but delivers the surprising depth to his character necessary to make “W.” more than a parody.
“W.” strikes a suitable, balanced tone. The film never explicitly depicts the controversial elections or the 9/11 attacks, which would have swung the film to out-of-place emotional extremes. Stone never truly asks the audience to pity his subject, but he does imply that there may be more to him than meets the eye. Bush is a man of wealth and privilege, allowed to repeatedly fail and escape from embarrassing personal situations thanks to his powerful ‘Poppy.’ However, he receives little encouragement from his parents, who don’t seem to expect anything more of him and constantly heap praise on his brother Jeb. He can be an obnoxious, boozing bum; yet he also displays much tenderness towards friends and family, and when he is ‘born-again’ the transformation seems genuine. He utters many of the most famous ‘Bush-isms’ (including a description of himself as ‘the Decider’), but just because he is inarticulate does not mean that there is no thought or passion behind his words.
As many critics around the country have already posited, the main question regarding “W.” is, “Why?” Stone has been an outspoken critic of President Bush, particularly of his involvement in Iraq. And, to be clear, Stone’s relatively fair portrayal extends only to Bush’s personal character; he clearly does not feel Bush belonged in the White House (a sequence using real footage from the Iraq War is jarring and meant to contrast the smooth confidence of Bush, Rumsfeld, etc.). Why attempt a biography now, before there is any distance to judge Bush’s historical impact?
It is essentially an elementary-school response, but Stone’s answer is more or less, “Why not?” What would be the point of waiting to make “W.” until we collectively decide how to view the Bush administration? If we reached that point, the statement would just be redundant. The objective of “W.” is not so much to pass judgment as to spark discussion. Stone says that this issue is too important to be addressed from a distance. George W. Bush has had a huge impact on our country; we should not simply disregard his biography because emotions make it difficult to be objective.
Aesthetically, “W.” is relatively restrained. Other than a few short sequences involving Bush’s baseball fantasies, Stone knows that he doesn’t need to draw attention to the film’s style to keep the audience’s interest. Watching Cheney and Rumsfeld slowly beat down Colin Powell’s objections to invading Iraq is entrancing enough in itself, even if it comes completely from Stone’s imagination.
Don’t be quick to dismiss “W.” as just another piece of liberal Bush-bashing. It may not have much new to say, but it is, remarkably, the most even-handed of Stone’s presidential semi-biographies (following 1991’s “JFK” and 1995’s “Nixon”) and a genuinely entertaining film that, while certainly not changing political opinions of Bush, reminds us that there is more to the man than a caricature.