Day 136: W.

- Mr. President, what place do you think you will have in history?
- History? In history we'll all be dead!

I'll try my best to divorce myself from the natural political bias I'll have as I'm writing this. It shouldn't be too hard though because Oliver Stone's film is actually not that political. Instead we get a pretty friendly, and effective portrait of Mr. W. It's certainly something to watch. It's more personal than it is political and it's empathetic instead of critical. It balances humor and drama delicately, but perfectly. Instead of just a passing film in the pretty solid filmography of Mr. Stone, it's actually a joy to watch and, in my opinion, a classic in the genre of "political films."

With his previous film, "Nixon," Oliver decided to virtually leave out any details of his domestic Presidency. That's primarily odd because of how much Richard Nixon accomplished during his Presidency. The whole currency system was radically altered during his tenure. No, instead Mr. Stone decided to focus on his foreign mission abroad, and his personal life. Even Watergate acts like a tool to showcase other personality traits to Nixon. It's not really a scandal for us to plot in itself. The same seems to be about "W." The WMDs fiasco (I think we can call it that right? Certainly declaring war based on WMDs and then not finding it has to be a fiasco. I mean that's not really a resounding success now is it?) isn't really covered with the intensity one would expect. [I don't think you can put three sentences in a parenthesis in the middle of another sentence. That's probably grammatically incorrent. Moving on...] Matt Damon's "Green Zone" film certainly took the WMD event and went to town but this is the exact opposite.

Proof of the film's odd sense of, oh I'd say, friendliness is the fact that the story never really dwells on too many policy details for so long. Who the hell would even want to watch a movie about a guy trying to privatize Social Security? Instead what is given ample time are three pillars: the Bush legacy, Dick Cheney's influence on Mr. W., and Bush's own uncertainty. Throughout the story, Bush's father, whose Presidency I deeply admire, is constantly expressing his disappointment with his son. Overtly, Herbert Walker wanted to rest the family's legacy on the shoulders of Jeb, not George. But the main problem of this happens to be, both in the film and in actuality, is that Jeb could never be the politician George was able to be. Jeb wasn't a bad Governor but Bush is able to command a sense of sincerity that even I admire.

On Dick Cheney, the film couldn't be more explicit. If there's one character that Stone truly decides to savage, it's him. Cheney is seen overstepping, intruding, and pretty much misbehaving constantly. Richard Dreyfuss looks perfect as Stone's new Tricky Dick, and his performance is spot-on. It's not an impression, but more like an embodiment. (Probably used before.) Bush's own uncertainty is cleverly managed as well. If there is one criticism I have of the film it's that the decision-making style of W. is not properly detailed. Some reports have claimed that Bush will search for few opinions before making a decision but after he's made it, he'll constantly second guess himself even while staunchly fighting for issues in public even when the public is thoroughly against him. [This has been detailed in Woodward's book as he compares Bush to Obama. He writes that Obama is the exact opposite. He, on the other hand, will search for every opinion for making a decision, frustrating everyone in his cabinet, but once he's made a decision he'll never second guess himself. Some say it's confidence, others call it intellectual arrogance. Back to Bush.] The film's exploration of Bush's uncertain mindset is detailed fittingly in two ways. First, there's the wild Bush we visit during the college years, and later there's the final shot of the film which is both pretentious and awesome.

Another piece of evidence pointing to the film's rather favorable treatment of Bush is the fact that Brolin has told a story that Oliver Stone says Bush liked the film. Apparently Stone met with Clinton who let Bush borrow a copy of "W." and Bush apparently really liked it. Another reason for this would probably be the way this film treats everything with a certain sardonic sense of humor. It's the "Dr. Strangelove" that "Dr. Strangelove" SHOULD have been. (Anyone who's heard my opinions on film long enough knows how much I despite that movie.) The hardest criticisms are delivered almost as Saturday Night Live sketches. There's no doubt that there's drama, but there's a considerable amount of humor. Setting that kind of tone is a big achievement for Stone. There certainly isn't much in his filmography to indicate that he could work on such a level but he manages to do it with great ease. He's able to handle a contemporary story in a way that is sure to be enduring for some time.

The film's second best attribute is probably the casting. At first I wasn't sure it was going to work but Thandie Newton as Rice? Spot on. Banks as Laura is also very effective. Stone treated Nixon's wife oddly. It was almost as if fleshing her out seemed to entail making her cold-hearted (well I mean, she was married to Richard Nixon, Jesus.) Nevertheless that performance rightly earned her an Oscar nomination. Laura Bush isn't fleshed out into such detail here though. Instead she playfully serves as the backdrop and support for Bush's own story. Which leads us to Stone's biggest accomplishment: Josh Brolin as Bush.

This was probably a tough role to take on. Instead of parodying Bush, who everyone LOVES to parody, Brolin embraces him as an everyday American who happens to stumble into things. Instead of treating him as a guy in over in his head, Bush is an empathetic man just trying to do the right thing. I actually do believe Bush was trying to do the right thing. I certainly don't like his Presidency. Conservatives are certainly right that history will treat him better though. His performance after 9/11 was stellar in the fact that he was able to enforce a narrative of Islamic tolerance effectively, and he was able to embrace the tragedy of 9/11 in a way that brought Americans together. While certainly going to war the way he did was a unique way of undoing a lot of that, I think he made the correct decision in pushing TARP forward during the financial crisis. At a time when his approval ratings were around 20-30%, he was able to maneuver such a pivotal piece of legislation with a Democratic Congress. That's not a small feat. So Bush is not the worst President in history. Don't misunderestimate his achievements.

(Although to be fair, TARP was structured in such a way that left bonuses for Wall Street intact in a repulsive manner and it also let them have what they want without some conditions. The GM bailout by the Obama administration was administered much better. People paid the costs of Darwinian capitalism and the Treasury was able to manage like a private equity firm normally would. Still TARP let the Federal Reserve do what it needed to and I think Bernanke not only did what was necessary in an extraordinary way, but I also think the Federal Reserve System is underappreciated in America. Granted, they deserve a lot of criticism for the last decade but they shouldn't be the whipping boy that Ron Paul and Alan Grayson use it as.)