Oliver Stone votes for 'Bush' project
Oliver Stone has set his sights on his next directing project, "Bush," a film focusing on the life and presidency of George W. Bush, and attached Josh Brolin to play the title role.
The director has begun quietly shopping a script by his "Wall Street" co-writer Stanley Weiser. . . .
"It's a behind-the-scenes approach, similar to 'Nixon,' to give a sense of what it's like to be in his skin," Stone told Daily Variety. "But if 'Nixon' was a symphony, this is more like a chamber piece, and not as dark in tone. People have turned my political ideas into a cliche, but that is superficial. I'm a dramatist who is interested in people, and I have empathy for Bush as a human being, much the same as I did for Castro, Nixon, Jim Morrison, Jim Garrison and Alexander the Great."
Stone declined to give his personal opinion of the president.
"I can't give you that, because the filmmaker has to hide in the work," Stone said. "Here, I'm the referee, and I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It's like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I'll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors." . . .
Variety, January 20

QED funding Stone's 'Bush' film
The deal -- made a week after Stone and producing partner Moritz Borman unveiled the top-secret script to buyers (Daily Variety, Jan. 21) -- means "Bush" could be in theaters by November's presidential elections, and certainly before Bush leaves the White House in January.
Variety, January 29

Oliver Stone casts parents of 'W'
Director Oliver Stone has set James Cromwell to play George Herbert Walker Bush and Ellen Burstyn to play former first lady Barbara Bush in "W," a drama about the formative years of their son, President George W. Bush.
Josh Brolin is playing the title character, and Elizabeth Banks will play first lady Laura Bush. . . .
Variety, March 26

Daddy Issues, War Lust in Oliver Stone's 'W'
Controversial Filmmaker's Early Script Depicts President Bush's Hard-Partying Youth and Feuds With His Father
ABC News, April 1

Evaluating W
A few cynical cheap-shotters wrote yesterday that the excerpts of Stanley Weiser's W script, provided yesterday in an ABC News article by Marcus Baram, led them to wonder if this was some kind of April Fool's joke. These guys are monkeys, in my opinion, and they need to reel it in. Or better yet, consider what Weiser wrote this morning in an e-mail and what I wrote back.
Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere, April 2

Thandie Newton, Ioan Gruffudd cast in 'W'
The Bush administration is coming together -- and adding a key ally for good measure.
Oliver Stone has found the actress to play Condoleezza Rice in his upcoming "W," with Thandie Newton in final negotiations to star as the National Security Advisor-turned-Secretary of State.
Meanwhile, Ioan Gruffudd is in final talks to play former British prime minister Tony Blair. . . .
Hollywood Reporter, April 5

I hope they cast Jon Voight as Rumsfeld, the guy who played Mike Novick on 24 as Cheney, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Karl Rove.

A fellow commenting on my blog has the best idea for Cheney I've seen yet: J.T. Walsh.

Unfortunately, that's the LATE J.T. Walsh, so it can't happen. But he would have been perfect.

Slate posts bits from a script draft. Looks like pretty standard stuff--might make a decent farce.

The Hollywood Reporter has four script pages and gets four Dubya biographers to comment.

MTV Movies Blog says Rob Corddry is playing Ari Fleischer.

As good as Brolin was in No Country for Old Men... I think I've seen just about enough of George W. Bush for one lifetime.

First Look: 'W,' Oliver Stone's Bush Biopic
As it happens, Oliver Stone went to school with George W. Bush. They both attended Yale in the mid-1960s — until Stone dropped out and served in Vietnam — although they didn't mix in the same circles. ''If I met him there, I don't remember,'' Stone says. ''But I do remember John Kerry. He was big man on campus, head of the Political Union. I definitely remember him.'' Thirty years later, in 1998, Stone had a closer encounter with then governor Bush at a Republican breakfast. ''I don't usually go to breakfast with anybody,'' he says, ''but I wanted to prove that even though people thought I was a leftist I wanted to hear what they had to say. It was funny, though — the minute I walked in the room the sound of the silverware kind of died. People were like, 'What's he doing here? Satan has walked in.''' He laughs. ''But I met George Bush and I remember thinking that this man was going to be president. There was just a confidence and enthusiasm I'd never seen in a candidate before, especially in a Republican.''
Entertainment Weekly, May 8

Lionsgate books Oliver Stone's 'W'
Lionsgate has acquired North American distribution rights to "W," the Oliver Stone-directed drama about the life and formative years of President Bush.
The film has been set for release on Oct. 17, giving the picture three weekends in theaters before the Nov. 4 presidential election.
Shooting begins May 12 Monday in Louisiana.
Variety, May 8

The Big Picture column in LA Times talks about the script today. The actual print edition has a sidebar with a scene of dialog that makes the case pretty clear that "I can guarantee that if you think "W." will be an earnest, respectful rendering of the Bush years -- sort of like Stone’s “World Trade Center” take on 9/11 -- you would be . . . wrong!"

Everything about this screams "extraordinarily bad idea".

LA Times has big article on Stone and the film today.

Watch the teaser while you can.

Who's singing 'Wonderful World' there? It sure ain't Satchmo. At any rate, an interesting nod, perhaps, to Bowling for Columbine (and, before that, Good Morning, Vietnam).

Interesting trailer. My first thought was Andy Williams was singing "Wonderful World", but I couldn't find it listed in his discography. Of course that doesn't mean he couldn't have been persuaded to make a new recording of the song.

Sigh...this is going to be a mere liberal screed.

And by the way, Josh Brolin is not exactly the first name that jumps to mind when I think of "actors who look like George Bush"...I don't claim to know whether he'll turn in a good performance or not, but in biopics I feel that at least a superficial resemblance is necessary (i.e., Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash).

I think the mistake was not casting, say, Will Farrell and making it a comedy. Possible title?

W:Strategery

I just watched the trailer...I don't see proof that it's just another "liberal screed"...frankly, if it had been a movie about a guy named Billy...would we have any idea of any political bent from this trailer?

Oliver Stone's George Bush biopic
Oliver Stone's Bush biopic plays it for laughs, but it's every bit as controversial as JFK and Nixon
Sunday Times, August 10

Exactly. Much like daddy James's hatchet-job...er, I mean, performance of Ronald Reagan not too long ago.

Oliver Stone has obviously never cared all that much about physical resemblances -- not if he cast Anthony Hopkins as Richard Milhous Nixon.

A preview of Josh Brolin's W impression.

I stand partially corrected. In that clip, Brolin at least gets the voice right.

Still...in the trailer, James Cromwell is so unlike Bush 41 in both appearance and voice that it almost made me laugh. He'll always be that scientist from First Contact to me.

I half expect him to smile down at Dubya at the end of the film, right after Saddam is executed, and say, "That'll do, George."

Oliver Stone did make-up tests on Christian Bale before hiring Josh Brolin instead.

New trailer emphasizes Talking Heads, absurdity.

Now it's embeddable:

Reviews are piling up!

The blurb on the official site is surprisingly venom free...and according to some of the reviews at that link Jeffrey O posted, apparently the film is not quite as much of an evisceration as people expect. It may be a bit less political and a bit more personal.

My curiosity is piqued. I wasn't interested in a "Bush Lied People Died" screed, but if this is an evenhanded portrait it could be fascinating.

Stone was on The Colbert Report and completely went along with the show's premise. Without skipping a beat, and staying completely in character, Stone went on and on about what a great president W was, to the extent that Colbert (in character) almost put on the brakes! He played it straight too--if you didn't know it was Oliver Stone, you'd have thought he was sincere.

I saw the film yesterday -- and then went and caught one of the first local matinees of An American Carol (political-movie whiplash!) -- and... and... I have things to say, but I think I'll respect the embargo.

If anyone else here sees the film, though, could you stay through the end credits and let me know if I saw what I think I saw at the very end of the film? (I.e., a white cross morphing into the W?)

And is there any historical basis for the scene in which Bush, in 1999, tells his minister that he's thinking of running for president because he believes "something" is going to happen and he believes God wants him to be president? I'm sure I've heard reports (disputed or otherwise) that Bush has seen himself in this light in hindsight, post-9/11, but is there any evidence anywhere to suggest that Bush had this kind of, um, prophetic insight BEFORE he ran for office?

Or -- sigh, this just occurred to me as I was writing this -- is this evidence of yet more conspiracy-theorizing? Because absolutely nothing else in the movie seems to point in that direction.

(And to make my day even MORE whiplashy, in-between those two movies, I saw Passchendaele, a Canadian movie set in the trenches of World War I. And then I came home and watched Leatherheads with my wife ... and in that film, there is a major flashback set on the battlefields of World War I. I swear, I did not plan this.)

Just for the record, I'm not saying that the film DOES advance a conspiracy theory. But the possibility that some people might INTERPRET the scene that way occurred to me as I was writing in this thread, because I remembered how, in our thread on World Trade Center, Vividity said that Stone had tossed some "choice" "conspiracy-minded" "morsels" into that film. So that interpretation has been applied to other seemingly non-conspiratorial films of Stone's before, and it might well be again. (FWIW, I have not double-checked any of Vividity's claims since that film came out on DVD.)

Harry Knowles says it's a great film. And judging by his praise of it's evenhandedness, perhaps Stone was indeed won over by his subject to some degree?

I haven't seen many movies in theaters lately, but I think this weekend I'm gonna watch me some W. It's too intriguing to pass up.

FWIW, Kyle Smith:

What to say about the inane, deceitful, blundering, obvious, repetitive two-hour “Saturday Night Live” sketch that is Oliver Stone’s Bush movie “W” except that it’s exactly what I expected? The “heavily-researched” movie, which was wisely withheld from many critics until nearly the last possible moment, completely mangles the basic facts–from Tony Blair’s support of the Iraq invasion (enthusiastic, not coerced) on down to basic biographical stuff known to millions of casual newspaper readers–in pursuit of a “Hee-Haw” meets “Dr. Strangelove” would-be satire in which “Yellow Rose of Texas” plays over the invasion of Iraq. I’ll have a few thousand words to say on the matter, but first I have to eat lunch and see “Max Payne.”

Jeff wrote:
: And judging by his praise of it's evenhandedness . . .

Well, he admits it seems evenhanded to a "liberal" like him, at any rate.

Knowles's reaction to Thandie Newton's portrayal of Condi Rice ("complete disdain", "fingernails on a chalkboard", etc.) is interesting. She seemed to evoke laughter more than anything else at the screening I attended.

Huh. I haven't read Smith's full review, but I thought the movie was better in many ways than I expected. Which is not to say that I recommend it, at least not without several caveats.

The acting is not one of those caveats. It's very good except for Thandie Newton's performance, which is ... yeah, like fingernails on a chalk board. It did provoke laughter from some in the theater where I saw it, but not from me.

EDIT: I should mention that a couple of women next to me in the press row could be heard on the way out saying "it was so boring." That is one adjective I would not use for this film.

Any thoughts on the possible conspiracy-theory angle? (I.e. the possibility that Stone may be hinting at a conspiracy theory in the 1999 scene.) I'm dying to compare notes with other people who have seen the film, on this point, but so far none of the reviews or interviews I've come across have even MENTIONED the possibility.

I didn't stay through the end credits but don't understand what the "conspiracy" is that you're getting at.

I think he is referring to his question from a couple days back:

Yeah, exactly. It's the 1999 scene I'm wondering about, primarily. The end credits are a completely separate matter.

The 1999 scene has Dubya sensing that "something" is going to happen to the country soon, therefore God wants him to be president so he can deal with it. There are three ways to interpret this scene:

One. It doesn't mean anything at all, and this is just another example of Stone transposing one element from Bush's life to another, sometimes earlier, part of his life. (You see this in the way Bush's public mis-statements -- "Fool me once," etc. -- are re-cast as something he says in private conversation. You also see it, apparently, in the scene where Dubya tells his dad he regrets trading Sammy Sosa from the Texas Rangers -- a scene that apparently takes place several years before Bush would have had any reason to express regret, much less did express regret.) In this case, Stone would be taking Bush's possible belief that, in hindsight, God wanted him to be President when 9/11 took place, and moving it to a point in the story that takes place BEFORE 9/11 happened -- and Stone would be doing this simply because, for dramatic reasons, it seemed like the best place to put it.

Two. It does mean something, and it means that Bush, in Stone's film, has the gift of prophecy.

Three. It does mean something, and it means that Bush, in Stone's film, is aware of a conspiracy that can only come to fruition if he is there in the White House to make the most of it.

I can't think of anything else in the film that really supports Two or Three. Re: Two, Stone does seem to think that Bush's faith is genuine, but I don't think he believes that Bush's faith has given him supernatural powers. Re: Three, Stone does have at least a couple scenes where people sit in the shadows kind of menacing-like, but nothing that I can recall which is quite so ominous as to suggest a conspiracy, let alone one that the Dubya character would be privy to.

But option One is kind of odd, too, dontchathink?

I think the only conspiracy in this movie is over why we went to war. Dick Cheney states it in that crazy speech he makes, with the PowerPoint slides signaling where all the oil wells are in Iran and Iraq. That's your conspiracy.

EDIT: I don't mean that anything like that never happened (although I'm skeptical of the way in which the speech is portrayed). And I don't mean that the war is viewed as "illegal." I mean it in the sense of definition 4, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

SYLLABICATION: con·spir·a·cy
PRONUNCIATION: kn-spîr-s
NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

E-mail number one:

Evidentally decency is no longer a criteria for movies -- just whether or not they are well-acted.

I assumed that Crosswalk would give me a Christian perspective but I'm finding the reviews little better than the newspaper which is geared toward helping film companies make money. I just finished reading 1 Peter -- in which we are told to show respect for those in authority. Laura Bush -- ( a first class lady no matter what your political leanings may be )-- depicted in bra and panties? A President shown as a drunk even though that was no part of his presidency? [EDIT: I don't think I indicated that in my review, but if I did, it was a mistake. Bush is shown as a drinker BEFORE his presidency, not during.] A real-life story with no attempt at presenting truth or even two different points of view? A parody released in time to try to influence an election? Why in the world would you recommend it?

E-mail number two (emphasis added):

As a Christian who lives in Canada, I can tell you that last Sat. night, the movie theatre was sold out for the movie W.

The majority of the crowd thought the movie was very good - it told us things we already felt about President Bush - he is not a nice or very smart man.

The U.S. has finally admitted in real life that the attack on Iraq was for oil, with many of Canadian and U.S. soldiers being meanlessly killed. We were glad to see it put into the movie.

I am sorry that this Christian website saw it fitting to have two articles defending Bush - this one and the one called Can McCain-Palin Fend Off The Welfare State? You must be Republican based, by reading the articles. Too bad - most Canadians do not want to see Bush back in.

The only one who seems to have real integrity is Mr. Colin Powell, who we are glad to see has come out to endorse Barack Obama!

Thank you.

: The only one who seems to have real integrity is Mr. Colin Powell . . .



But since the subject came up, W. was #4 with $10.5 million in "North America" this weekend, but only #6 with $601,240 in Canada -- though admittedly that's partly because a Canadian World War I epic called Passchendaele, which has not yet been released in the United States, was #2 up here. At any rate, iW. made only 5.7% of its gross in Canada, despite the fact that Canada has about 9.7% of the North American population, and despite the fact that Bush-bashing films (Fahrenheit 9/11 at 14.6%, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay at 19.5%, etc.) tend to do comparatively well up here.

David Thomson, at the end of an attention-getting, curious post about what the current U.S. economic crisis might mean for the quality of films to come, writes:

Yet it's not hopeless. With weird relevance there comes a film written by Oliver Stone. It's far from perfect, but he is a determined, conscientious American who feels the need to remember history. His new film - W - has some of the back-handed irony of My Man Godfrey and a surprising insight about how we get where we are. Only America could make a W - and let such a man be president.

The rest of the post is fodder for a separate thread.

Colin Powell comes out looking so good in this film that I'm surprised that Oliver Stone didn't make an entire movie about him.

All in all, I thought the film was a kind of Greek tragedy: about a genuinely likeable guy who wound up being a victim of family expectations, his own sense of destiny, and the advice he got from the people he trusted. Although Mr. Stone certainly didn't pass up a chance to tell us his opinions on why we really went into Iraq.

But ultimately, the film doesn't tell us much about W.'s inner life, about what made him tick. I suppose that was the point Stone was trying to make, that W. was an empty suit. But there were some things that could have been explored in more detail to illustrate how W. could have convinced people to follow him and vote for him: such as exploring in more detail the relationship between W. and Karl Rove, or showing more of Mr. Bush interacting with people on the campaign trail.

Crow wrote:
: Colin Powell comes out looking so good in this film that I'm surprised that Oliver Stone didn't make an entire movie about him.

I don't know if I'd say he "comes out looking so good". As the other characters note, Powell did make the case for invading Iraq at the UN for them. He played along.

And I love Powell's "f--- you" moment. Cheney (the movie's Cheney, that is) has a point, I think. Powell, in the '90s, may have enjoyed the popularity that led to people saying he could have run for President, but did he have what it takes to be the one who makes the unpopular decisions? In that vein, Powell's latest move seems like an attempt at image rehabilitation more than anything else. Integrity, it isn't.

Incidentally, I also like the way Stone shows all the senators -- not just McCain, but Clinton and Kerry and Kennedy and so forth -- applauding Bush when he makes his big speech in anticipation of the invasion of Iraq. Too bad he didn't include Biden (at least not that I noticed).

: But ultimately, the film doesn't tell us much about W.'s inner life, about what made him tick. I suppose that was the point Stone was trying to make, that W. was an empty suit. But there were some things that could have been explored in more detail to illustrate how W. could have convinced people to follow him and vote for him: such as exploring in more detail the relationship between W. and Karl Rove, or showing more of Mr. Bush interacting with people on the campaign trail.

Yup, good points all.

Movieguide's Tom Snyder:

The website for W. has posted its "official film guide", including this page which addresses the scene I had questions about above. There are at least two other pages that address the portrayal of faith in this film. Apparently the dialogue in the scene of Dubya's conversion is based largely on stuff that Billy Graham has said, whereas the scene I had questions about is largely based on the recollections of James Robison.

Jeff, you cut and pasted that from The Onion, right?

I wish. It's certainly funny enough... until you realize it's not meant to be funny.