"W." (2008) - Movie Review

After getting into the habit of reviewing films one thing has commonly occurred into my mind which is judgment. The judgment of not the films but more about the characters in it and about the unintended/intended notions of that particular people projected by the director. In real life I would like to and have been trying in exercising to be a person not to come to conclusion by immediacy and always give the benefit of doubt to every person. Sounding like a politician it is a tough perspective and it is especially true when it comes to distant personalities and the news you see and hear coming in distorted and diluted. In a way I have channeled those judgments for the fictitious films or only to what the film shows us. “W.” is not alone can be said as a judgment of the character but to judge a living man based on the facts claimed by the film. I got to come around doing it fairly but Stone had made it easy. I will tell you why.

I have not had a good opinion of George W. Bush and at this moment no one is in favour of the president. Anything and everything has been blamed upon him and with a limited knowledge of the happenings it is fair for me to say that being pissed off at him is justified at this juncture. So when Oliver Stone declared his project of portraying the life and journey of Bush to presidency, it is a beating fantasy for a liberal, democrat and hell a lot of republicans too. What Stone gives is a character and a person stripped off the caricature animated goofy personality into a man constantly been challenged of his capabilities due to his upbringing as the rich kid in town. With Josh Brolin as the man himself, it can be very gladly considered a look of a public figure in closed doors. The veracity of the material will always be questionable but as a film of a persona “W.” is good if not best.

With the key personalities lurking around this man, it tells the story in flash backs and revert backs to the start of the “War on Terror” and the subsequent failure to end the thing and becoming the vortex of never ending complications. As a college boy, he is the outlaw in the town with prominent personality as his dad (James Cromwell). He parties all time and gets into fights. In a run for many jobs, he does not like or succeed as the set expectation by his dad or in his terms “poppy”. He has to compete within the family itself with his brother Jeb and perennially is in the state of needing attention from his father. This is the axis in which the film revolves with a son growing up wanting to be praised by his father and when it fails he assists his father to succeed and when it fails wants to be his father and when it fails, he opts for god. This is a story of relationship so unspoken of that the two men without words take actions resulting in a country’s misdirection.

It has to be talked about and must be mentioned on how carefully Brolin plays Bush. He does not condescend a bit on the character he is playing. For an actor I presume for the role he/she takes, he/she would have his/her judgment and opinions towards it. Fictional portrayal and non-fictional have their view points to carry it over. The struggle to embrace it keeping personal belief aside would be a part of the job description but in this character we see it. I can strongly say that Brolin did not have a nicer view of this character because pretty much the whole country thinks so but he sees beneath it as Stone does. He sees an ordinary man and a son doing things for an acknowledgment. Brolin while mimicking does not make it a joke. We are made to take the character seriously when it should be which is in most of the film.

Having said these things about “W.”, it being a good movie does not make it a better film. It is unique, no one would question that. If any one could ever come up with a fairly objective view of Bush, this would be it. It has the supporting cast getting their screen time as a matter of necessity than for satire. This is not the satire many were expecting and it reaches out beyond those things. It is not mockery but an analysis. It is a question for the public to think about that the president or a notably public figure is not the character looked on the media and debated about. It is about his behavioral characteristics of brain waves connecting high wires to work out his accomplishments, accolades and love from the expected persons. As my friend would say that despite all the philosophy and preaching, end of the day we are all sentimental bastards. Bush is one too as every one of us.

When he did not get the fatherly attention he would, the direction goes above and beyond. He adopts god as his father, an unquestionable and non-condescending authority to guide him, appreciate him and enlighten him personally through ego and many other things. He genuinely believes that god has elected him to lead the country and as any one strongly believes, he thinks him as the goodness moulded in inches of his skin to root out the evil from this world.

There are scenes which are synchronized with an astounding clarity in what would have happened in the conference rooms and there are scenes of absolute emotion cracking out of Senior Bush and a constantly questioning W. Yet the kill shot never happens. May be there never was one Stone wanted to have. He wanted to take a hard look on each of us to see what we are made of. What we are in our process of fulfilling life wanted out of each other. A son, a father, a daughter, a mother, a brother and a friend. It is all what it is for an ordinary person. An ordinary person working 40 hours per week, voting and wearing a Lance Armstrong hand band as a symbol of his effort towards humanity. In accomplishing the love and hate for each other, it becomes the driving force of events. But apart from these there are people who go far beyond than that. Leaders as Presidents and they are so because they travel beyond that ordinary person. They sacrifice that luxury of being that regular person and the sacrifice is to separate their feelings from the job of defining the course of millions of people.