Remember in April when scenes from the script for Oliver Stone’s ‘W’ were leaked and greedily pored over at NYM’s Culture Vulture? Major media analysts were aghast at the sophomoric dialogue, packed with every trite Bushism repeated ad nauseum on late night TV for the past 8 years. We here at AD even wondered if those exceedingly weak excerpts were some kind of sick practical joke — if not scraps left over from a sub-par SNL sketch, abandoned for being too crudely amateurish.
Sad to report, having now read the complete screenplay, I can assure you that the groaners we saw two months ago were the good parts. The teaser poster publicity material doesn’t try to pretend that ‘W’ intends to portray Bush as anything except an embarrassing joke. But guess what? I don’t find war crimes very funny. Yuck it up Oliver Stone. Nudge us in the ribs and ridicule this administration as buffoons and clowns all you want. I’d hate to take my kids to a circus where the clowns drop bombs on babies and torture teenage “detainees.” Or maybe it’s the economic collapse, and telecom eavesdropping, and billions of dollars in war profiteering that’s so hilarious. If so, this piece of trash I’ve read doesn’t deliver those clever punch line very clearly.
I know we usually try to focus on awards-worthy movies, so I want to be first to predict multiple nominations. In fact, W might sweep the Razzies! (No, I’m not done yet. Rant continued after the cut.)
Oh, I know what you’re thinking. “It’s not all about the screenplay, Ryan, you devilish word snob, you.” True enough, so maybe we can hang our shredded hopes on some of these other fine filmmakers. Cinematography by Phaidon “camcorder” Papamichael (Walk the Line, Sideways), to guarantee that the look of the film will surpass any Lifetime Original Movie ever made. Stunt casting by Sarah Finn (Crash, In the Valley if Elah) to insure dozens of walk-of-fame walk-ons for as many celebrity cameos as possible, in case we might acidentally go 3 minutes without being yanked out of the movie without a jarring association by somebody last featured on Comedy Central. Production design by Derek R. Hill, whose highest-ranked credits on IMDb are 57 episodes of “House” (which takes place in some of the most propped-up laminated-plastic hospital sets since Dr. Kildaire).
At least there’s Transportation Coordinator, Jerry Jackson, who parked cars for movies as cool as 21 Grams and The People vs. Larry Flynt, so I’m looking forward to seeing if he can somehow salvage this sad debacle — maybe by repeatedly running over the camera negatives with a truck.
But I don’t want to end this post with negavitivity, so here’s some heartening news. The Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco has gathered enough petition signatures to vote on renaming one of its largest sewage treatment facilities to honor George W. Bush, in what supporters describe as ‚Äúa fitting monument to the President‚Äôs work‚Äù.¬† The renaming ceremony will take place to coincide with Obama’s inauguration on January 19 next year. (No word on whether or not ‘Turd Blossom’ souvenirs will be handed out).
So if you’re really dying to see a monumental piece of doo-doo with Bush’s name on it, please take my advice. Skip the movie and go tour the sewage plant. It’s bound to be a better example of strained and filtered shit than this script.
Long time reader, first time writer…actually, i have posted before, but this is my first time with a post for Ryan directly.
I completely agree with your position about our President. He is a war criminal and should held accountable for his crimes. Making a bad Dr. Strangelove-style farce about him does not do that, and, in fact, seems to throw gas on the fire.
That being typed (as opposed to said), you are taking this thread really personally Ryan. Like the poster Tufas commented, our President is a war criminal who is still in office and has not been held accountable. The rest of the world, rightly or wrongly, will blame all of us for keeping him in office. Just because we think he is guilty and a criminal, other than writing about, what action have we taken to hold him accountable?
I am in complete agreement with you on this, and I am holding myself accountable here too. I complain, I write, I contact my Senators and Reps, but that is all I do. There is more that I could do and I am choosing not to.
“Were your comments on the skin roasting off the flesh of Japanese children in response to an A-Bomb comment any different? “
Yes, because my examples actually happened. As far as I know, Bush doesn’t eat babies. (Cheney, not so sure about.) 😎
Lighten up, D/N. There’s old sayin’ down in Texas: “You don’t have a dog in this fight.” You said that yourself, and yet you’re the one with the hair bursting into flames.
D/N, your remark suggesting that someone who doesn’t like what’s happened to America must want to see “Bush chowing down on babies and raping Iraqi kids” was so incredibly coarse and ugly, I assumed it could only come from a right-winger.
Eh, I understand it’s late, but do you REALLY believe that your beloved “left-wingers” would not say something as “course and ugly” as that? REALLY?! You simply cannot be that naive. Of course it was course and ugly, it was the exact same monstrous and simplified caricature of Bush you hold up as your signal of revolution. Were your comments on the skin roasting off the flesh of Japanese children in response to an A-Bomb comment any different? Was there something noble and refined about your statements there? You go for the jugular IMMEDIATELY when your very first comments on the war were “BUSH DROPS BOMBS ON CHILDREN AND TORTURES THEM GRARGH RARGH RAGE!” And you actually have the stones to declare that “course and ugly” comments are solely a right-winger’s way of speaking? Ye gods.
Anyways, we’re clearly at an impasse, as all I can really do besides that is repeat my prior words on how your fundamental problems with the movie bely your claimed beliefs that it could be acceptable to you. It may seem like genuine hope to you, but it smells like false hope to me.
And hey, I’m simply spreading my apolitical stance in the same way you are your political one. Feel free to hire on a hardline neo-con to write up pointless political rants disguised as film news if you want to see me go after him as well. See you around.
“geez, Paddy Chayefsky, we miss you dude.”
How about any writer that hasn’t emerged in the last few years! Shoot, reading excerpts from this script make me realize just HOW Diablo Cody won that Oscar.
ha! Christopher.
yikes, don’t get me started on Nader. His recent statements that Obama is trying to “talk white” are some of the same brainless divisive babble found in the version of “W” I’ve read.
With any luck, “W”s Transportation Coordinator, Jerry Jackson is an AD reader, and he’ll tip Stone off to the worries some of us have. There’s still time to edit out the scene where Bush’s inner circle lock Colin Powell out of the Cabinet meeting.
“Around the table, everybody snickers”
geez, Paddy Chayefsky, we miss you dude.
“I felt your successive statements about your sudden “hope” for the project to be severe backtracking…”
My genuine and sincere hope is based on feedback from several cool-headed readers who reminded me that the script I read was 6 months old when filming began, and their reasonable (equally hopeful) suggestions that the version I saw might differ substantially from the shooting script. This is reason enough for a wait-and-see attitude, and I appreciate the respect many have for Oliver Stone’s past achievements. I share that respect.
However, if the script doesn’t undergo substantial overhaul, then I believe the movie will be laughably bad. I feel like Stone has lost his political cajones over the past 10 years, and I miss the firebrand rebel who won 3 Oscars. The script I saw for “W” is an embarrassment, but you’re wrong as wring can be if you don’t think I want Stone to somehow wring a great movie from the shallow material.
D/N, your remark suggesting that someone who doesn’t like what’s happened to America must want to see “Bush chowing down on babies and raping Iraqi kids” was so incredibly coarse and ugly, I assumed it could only come from a right-winger. I knew that you were writing from Canada. I didn’t know that there’s no such thing as a conservative in Canada. Despite your protests of neutrality, you must have some trace of political opinion or else why would this topic be the first time ever you felt inspired to comment at AwardsDaily?
I have a lot of hope that a lot of things will change in this country in the next few months. Oliver Stone’s movie has a chance to make a difference in October, so I hope he doesn’t blow it.
” I’m sure to you that means that I’m “just as bad” as those evil Bushies since I’m not ready to storm the White House while wearing my Che T-Shirt from freshman year, but that’s just another reason for me to find you amusing more than anything (much like Bush, really), and truly not worth the time to hate. You can go and hate all you want, I feel it’s simply too much energy. I wasted all my hatred in my uni days, when I managed to run the gamut from Socialism to Ayn Rand-esque Objectivism before realizing how utterly silly I was being.”
Ralph? Ralph Nader?? Is that YOU???
Don’t try to reduce me to a stereotype that you’ve already decided to hate and loathe. You don’t know me, and you don’t want to know me.
Well, the problem there is that I do know at least enough about you to make a conjecture based on your original post. I DO know full well that you hate and loathe Bush, you’ve said it yourself and (I’m sure) would completely agree. The context of your main post said nothing about whether you actually felt the film was funny or not, merely that you 1) Hated the script with a passion, and I) Did not feel it should be jocular when Bush is out there being Hitler and all. I felt your successive statements about your sudden “hope” for the project to be severe backtracking and quiet nonsensical, as we already have a good idea as to what type of movie the film will be, and the chances of it being DIFFERENT enough from what you’ve read to cause you to love it seem to be quite astronomical.
I also do not think that you want the film to be bad, just that you’ve already decided it to be so based solely on your political viewpoints . You want it to be watchable, but unless the script is rewritten to be according to your views, you will not deem it to be so. Nothing specifically WRONG with that, of course, but you shouldn’t act like your problem is with the film’s structure rather than its content. Because that would be a bold-faced lie. And you know who else lies. THE EVIL BUSH.
It must be tough to type with that right-wing tied behind your back.
I do wonder if that’s an attempt to be funny with another hilarious and wildly off-base “projection” of yours in regards to your belief of mine, like some kind of tit-for-tat childish disagreement. Unfortunately I don’t have that high an opinion of you, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
But it does serve very well to indicate the gross and quiet hilarious epicentre of your stances on the film and life in general. Translation: Everyone who disagrees with me MUST be one of them evil neo-cons!! For the record, I am A) Canadian and B) Pretty much as apolitical as you can get, having proudly exercised my educated right to NOT vote for the last five years or so. I’m sure to you that means that I’m “just as bad” as those evil Bushies since I’m not ready to storm the White House while wearing my Che T-Shirt from freshman year, but that’s just another reason for me to find you amusing more than anything (much like Bush, really), and truly not worth the time to hate. You can go and hate all you want, I feel it’s simply too much energy. I wasted all my hatred in my uni days, when I managed to run the gamut from Socialism to Ayn Rand-esque Objectivism before realizing how utterly silly I was being.
Iggy! Thanks for the R.S.V.P. and attending my crucifixion!
friggen clip perfecto!
Free, give me a lesson sometime in how to be concise and to the point, can you? 😎
As usual, when I dash off a post in the middle of the night, I’m sometimes more concerned with stringing together catchy phrases than I am about focusing my intended message to a sharp point. And as usual I end up figuring out what I feel and refining what I meant to say later, based on the bright and thoughtful feedback from all you guys (well… from most of you guys 😉 )
yeah, what Free said. I’m beginning to get a little weary of dutifully going to see Oliver Stone movies, hoping that he’ll get his Mojo back, because I’m losing interest in following him to wherever his talent has wandered off to.
I’ve just been spoiled by reading some really amazing scripts this month. And two really bad ones. I would not have believed it 3 days ago if somebody told me Oliver Stone was directing a script that was on the same level as Diablo Cody’s “Jennifer’s Body.” But there you have it.
And also, a very big part of my apprehension and misgivings does not have anything to do with the script. Weak as it is, I imagine Oliver Stone can do wonders with it (he’ll have to).
But more importantly, to go back to what sartre said in comment #23, for me the timing is all wrong. A bio-pic of the same tiresome people we’ve had to endure watching on TV every day for 8 years, is a little too much like a grotesque Halloween dress-up pageant.
Can anybody think of a worthwhile movie about a major public figure that was made while they’re still in the public eye?
(I’m not trying to be argumentative. I really am trying to think, and coming up blank.) Sure, there’s The Queen. But the difference there is that Queen Elizabeth seems sort of preserved under glass, like a fancy pheasant… and besides that, Helen Mirren is in fact a Queen.
This insistence on immediately doing a Ripped-from-the-Headlines recreation of such recent events confers an unavoidable cable TV vibe to the whole project.
Then there’s sartre’s other major point: The repugnant subject matter is something we just got through living through. It seems a little masochistic to do an instant replay to relive all those golden moments.
We have documentaries that serve that purpose, and documentaries are less likely to be accused of whitewashing or tarring-and-feathering their subject with unrealistic dialogue attempting to pass itself off as historical veracity.
elessar, I’m absolutely not writing Brolin’s obit. whoa, not at all. He’ll blow the doors off Milk… (er, if that’s not a poor choice of words.)
Kinda takes me by surprise that everybody is taking this trivial script so seriously when — honestly — my main purpose in bringing it up was to flick it off like a piece of distracting lint. (and to find an excuse to bring up the George W. Bush Memorial Sewage Plant.) 😎
alas, even that point was flawed. Because at least a sewage plant cleans up the rancid mess that’s been dumped down the drain, instead of leaving the place in bloody ruins for the next guy to mop up.
You can always see it this way, maybe the most appropriate way to honor Bush administration (and making a movie, somehow is) is by making a bad movie.
Regarding the man: http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo
As they say, always look on the bright side… November is just out there 😉
Ryan Adams, how old are you?
Like most others, I am planning on seeing what happens later down the road. Not even so much waiting to see it for myself, but to see if the critical consensus is just plain terrible (and about 98% of the time, the critics and I are on the same page).
If it turns out Ryan is right (which, for my part, I am thinking he will be), it won’t be the biggest shock to me. Stone hasn’t made a decent film, in my opinion, in over a decade. And from what I gather, “W” is trying to be a sort of dark comedy, like “Dr. Strangelove,” which isn’t easy to pull off.
Was it not George Carlin who said, “I believe you can joke about anything”?
alynch, George Carlin could joke about anything, and he was brilliantly funny. Because he was a comedian. Some people can’t tell a joke to save their life.
Anybody can joke about anything they want. Being funny is the tough part.
Suddenly Oliver Stone, Grand Master of the Deep Historically Significant Bio-Pic (at which he excels) is suddenly Bill Maher?
Maybe he’s been hiding his lightheartedness under a bushel, but Oliver Stone has never made me laugh in 2 decades, so I guess that’s my basis for being skeptical. Also, check Stanley Weiser’s credits. Not exactly the lost Marx Brother.
All I have to go on is this: I didn’t laugh at the script. But I know there are some people who think Gilligan’s Island is hilarious, so I understand there are different standards of humor.
It’s not the joking that bothers me; it’s jokes that fall flat.
Who thought the scene excerpt was funny?
Show of hands.
…Bueller? Bueller?
Nice try D/N. But you’re projecting. Don’t try to reduce me to a stereotype that you’ve already decided to hate and loathe. You don’t know me, and you don’t want to know me.
Trust me: I have the capacity to enjoy movies that surprise me, with no expectations whatsoever.
The script I dislike because it’s lame and flat.
The movie I sincerely hope can overcome those faults.
Why would you imagine that I want this or any other movie to suck? I don’t write for a movie blog because I have a hard-on for bad movies.
I don’t want the movie to be “a call to arms.”
All I want it to be is enjoyable, or at least watchable.
Your assumptions are wrong. But thanks for playing.
It must be tough to type with that right-wing tied behind your back.
I really don’t understand why it’s somehow inappropriate to make a film that in some ways laughs at Bush and his ridiculousness. Hasn’t pretty much every single comedian has been making fun of this guy for years? Is the mere fact that this is a film biography somehow make it a more noble calling that can’t be wasted on laughs? Was it not George Carlin who said, “I believe you can joke about anything”?
The problem being, of course, that you’ve already determined that you’re going to hate and loathe W unless it ends up portraying exactly the portrait of Bush that you want it too. Which, it seems clear from the script, it won’t. So your backtracking to “I hope Stone ends up knocking it out of the park” seems both pandering and inane. You want to see Bush chowing down on babies and raping Iraqi kids because he’s a convenient figurehead for you to rail against, and it’s already pretty clear that the movie is not going to provide that. Ergo, you don’t really have much more to say (not that that will stop you, I’m sure). I did get a kick out of your righteous anger though. Keep raging against that machine.
Now, I don’t have any delusions that this film is going to be any real good (it’s modern-day Oliver Stone, for christ’s sake), but that’s just my opinion on it as a fictional film, not the call to revolution that you seem to want it to be. And seeing as how all those recent “call to action” films have been generally atrocious AND complete failures at their goals, I have to consider that a good thing. Lions for Lambs, anyone?
Scooby-Doo says: “Ruh-Roh, Dr. StrangeRove.”
I just want to make clear: I’d be thrilled (and stunned) if “W” turns out to be a work of satirical genius, or even a portrait of a pitiful screw-up’s risible rise and fall. The script I’ve seen was 6 months old when filming began, so there was plenty of time for rewrites and dialogue refinement. (Though by whom? What has Stanley Weiser written worth watching since Wall Street? — 21 years is an awfully long drought and he doesn’t exactly seem to be getting sharper as the years fly by.)
But I would love it if Oliver Stone pulls this together and knocks it out of the park. I wish I could have more confidence based on what he’s saying the movie will be, but it’s impossible to tell from his own statements what he’s planning to give us:
“Not a parody” … “a cross between a tragic comedy and political drama” … “in the vein of Network or Dr. Strangelove”… “compared his goal for W. to the approaches of The Queen and his own Nixon.”
I mean, ok, those all sound great, but they also sound like 5 different things. Stone is not at his best when he mixes and matches genres and styles. Lots of people like “U Turn” and “Natural Born Killers.” I’m not one of those people.
But if he can manage to pin down a point of view and not be too frivolous, then I’ll be paying to see this movie more than once. Because this kind of controversial filmmaking deserves our support, even when it misses its intended target.
I want the Oliver Stone of the 80’s back. Platoon, Salvador, JFK (’91) — works of pure insane genius. I treasure those movies.
But then, let’s be honest, then there was a distinct slippage and decline, and some downright bizarre missteps.
And I’m not the only one who thinks World Trade Center was a sellout and seemed almost like a kiss-up to all the things he used to rail against. With WTC, Stone alienated a lot of his fan base when he took a hard right turn down the middle of the road of sentimental hero worship — a far cry from Born on the Fourth of July.
I’m not saying Stone is not capable of a comeback and a return to former glory. I’m just saying I don’t know who is anymore. So I’m wary, I’m worried, and this script draft I’ve seen does nothing much to reassure me, that’s all.
But most of all, I’d like make clear: I want to hope Stone can pull this one out his hat like the brilliant magician of sociopolitical synthesis I know he can be. Like Kai says, what a killer kick in the ass this might be — splashing the petty corruptions and criminal negligence all over the news just a couple of weeks before the election.
It’s about time Democrats had a potent October surprise up their sleeve.
(and seattlemoviegoer, I truly do share you hopes and I’m willing to wait and see how this turns out. But I’m not so sure about the Dr. Strangelove angle. Satire like that works well when we can chuckle about it from a comfortable distance — the distance that fictionalization provides. That’s why the promise of satire in “W” makes me a little queasy. I’m not sure how funny it would be to see Slim Pickens riding atop the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Or straddling the missiles that crippled thousands of Iraqi kids.)
“Worked out great!
Except for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese kids whose skin slipped off their irradiated bones.
but hey, take a look at those shiny Mitsubishis!”
You take the good with the bad.
Sure, some people were decimated, but the country is one of the strongest democracies in the world. They have the second largest economy (only behind the great USA), and they are a pacifist country. Its not just about shiny cars, its about changing an imperialist war-thirsty country into a thriving pacifist democracy. If you can’t see the benefits of that, clearly your eyes must be closed.
And, besides, they attacked us first. You can’t hit first, and not expect to get hit back. That’s silly tree hugging talk…
Probably Oliver Stone means well. I can’t tell from looking at the script how the movie will look/sound. If it gets finished in time for people to see it before November elections it will be the big #1 story on the news, good or bad. doesn’t matter. seeing a bad movie about Bush or seeing a good movie about him, either way it all still reminds people of who they need to vote against.
I heard the script ends before anything important like 911 and Katrina happens. that makes no sense! why not make a movie about OJ and skip the part about the knife murder! in that way I agree 100% I don’t know why we want to see George Bush when he was a nobody in college.
Abe Lincoln’s early years… curious about. George Bush’s…. not. I have a feeling everybody will hate this movie. For 50 different reasons, depending on who you are. Good movie for aliens from other planets who never saw Jon Stewart or the Daily Show before. lol.
I read the script and actually kind of enjoyed it. Here is the thing: I don’t think Stone wants to tell the definitive Bush story, as the original poster wants him to. Instead, he wants it to be more like “A Face in the Crowd”, as it shows how someone so incompetent and unqualified managed to rise to the top based solely on his media image and appeal to “regular folk”. It will be a different kind of film than “Nixon”, which covered all grounds of the man’s life. Just because it wasn’t exactly what you wanted it to be like doesn’t automatically make it bad.
To the original poster, please explain how the film is apologetic? I think it portrays pretty clearly that Bush is a moron, totally unqualified for the presidency, and that he was completely misguided with the response to 9/11. I don’t want to get too into it because I don’t want to potentially spoil anything for anyone, but I don’t see at all how it’s making excuses for Bush; if anything, the daddy issues are portrayed as pretty pathetic on his part.
That said, I have no idea if the film will turn out any good, a lot of it is going to ride on the actors. There are definitely some passages where the dialouge seems too over the top. However, the unfortunate thing is that even if W ends up being a masterpiece, it won’t be appreciated for several years because everyone will judge it from their positions on Bush as a man as opposed ot the actual movie.
I can’t wait for W to come out and actually be a good movie. People jumping on this mob/bandwagon has gotten tiring. Stone knows what he’s doing… to me those youtube clips were actually pretty funny, and I am a very harsh critic of dialog.
I actually got my hands on a copy of the script, but after giving it a brief skimming, I elected not to read it because I didn’t want to go into the film with colored expectations. I mean this script is dated October 15, 2007. At that time, this film wasn’t even going to be Stone’s next project. That puts it at a relatively early stage. From what I understand, the script has since undergone two or three rewrites, so I really have trouble seeing how reading it will be beneficial.
NIXON back in 1995 got shat on by both liberals and conservatives….the right-wingers hated that Stone pissed on Nixon (of course, they would have pissed on it anyway I guess) and left-wingers were pissed that Nixon wasn’t shown as a monster.
But Stone trying to go DR. STRANGELOVE with W?
Yeah, a reason to be nervous…..but who knows, maybe he’ll surprise us with something worth watching.
Or maybe he’ll give us SEIZURE and THE HAND.*
*=You know, Stone’s first movies that were lame horror efforts.
To the prick above me, you have no idea what a screenplay means do you? It’s what they bloody say. The script is rubbish, I’ve read it myself. First page Dubya and Cheney interact like children. It’s just so terrible and Ryan here hit the nail on the head. This is going to sweep the Razzie’s. This here is another publicity attempt by Oliver Stone.
Thanks, Ryan, for your take on the script. I think a movie can only be as good as its script’s potential and this sounds (as I suspected) to have none at all. The transparent reason for making this “movie” doomed it from the start. There was no artistic drive in it from what I could tell; just hate.
I’m not surprised to read that it’s nothing to reward.
We’re cinephiles, man: we don’t have lives.
ALL OF YOU NEED A LIFE. THIS MOVIE HASN’T EVEN FINISHED SHOOTING. YOU CANNOT HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT A MOVIE THAT DOES NOT YET EXIST. ALLOW THE FILMMAKERS THEIR PROCESS AND JUDGE THE MOVIES AFTER YOU HAVE PAID YOUR ADMISSION.
GROW UP.
Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion, Markku. I’m all for humanizing too, so long as it helps understand bad behavior, not perpetuate simplistic explanations or inadvertently apologize for it. Anyway, hats off to everyone here for a fine and passionate discussion.
It was my understanding that Green Zone was only a temporary title (not a bad one, but I agree: the original is better). I’ve also read the (excellent) book and am indiscribeably jealous that you have read the script.
I’ve read some speculation that the post-production could easily be finished for this year’s Oscar season, but Universal is holding it back, scared by the lackluster success of other similarly themed films.
They’re calling ‘Imperial Life in the Emerald City’ by a new title now, Markku. They might be changing it to ‘Green Zone’ — which I think is a shame, because the original title is terrific.
I’ve read Chandrasekaran’s book, and it’s brilliant. Happy to relay the great news that the script by Paul Greengrass is equally astonishing. They’ve finished filming. I wish they’d get it theaters by year’s end, but that’s not looking likely.
“I want a solid and hammering examination of the evil that’s been going on.”
A film like that is probably coming in a few years or so. Perhaps even as early as next year, when Paul Greengrass’s Imperial Life in the Emerald City finally, finally comes out. So far Hollywood’s response to Iraq has lacked serious cojones.
Oh, and sarte: I didn’t mean to sound condescending, for that I apologise. My hat’s off for you for doing the job you did with those people. I also fully share your sentiments on personal responsibility, . I still think that a humanistic portrayal, even in the context of a dark comedy, is justified.
The script Ryan and I have read has presumably gone through some revisions before going into production, though. It could still end up either more overtly dramatic or more overtly comedic.
Don’t jump on me and other Democrats & Independents for not seeing what’s happened and not understanding what needs to be done, Tufas. It’s not helpful to blame all Americans for the havoc 51% of voters have wrought.
I’d love to see an intelligent and insightful movie that delves deeply into everything this administration has done to damage our country and the world. This movie is neither intelligent nor insightful. It trivializes a tragedy, and clowns around, and plays cute. Is that what you want to see?
I’ve bought every major anti-conservative, neo-con bashing expose documentary made in the past 8 years, and I’m forever foisting them on friends and family and anybody who’ll listen. So try to claim I want to bury my head in the sand.
You’re misreading me, Tufas. I do know exactly what’s being done in the name of “patriotism” and “democracy” and you should know me well enough to know it disgusts me.
This script is not a mirror, my friend. It’s an apology; it’s an excuse. It tries to show that Bush’s insecurities and daddy issues are at the root of his destructive and demented behavior — without going into any factual detail about how this weak-minded coward let himself be used a sock-puppet cheerleader for a sick agenda. It relies on simplistic psychology and shallow melodrama to try to explain away the horrific deeds perpetrated on Iraq, and shows us nothing, nothing, nothing of those actual travesties or consequences.
Be outraged Tufas. Because the (slender) majority of Americans are too. But try not to lash out at people who are on your side, ok?
I know we need to wait and see the movie before we can know if this early assessment is valid. But the fact is, you haven’t seen the script, and you don’t know how sick to my stomach it makes me to see Bush sniffling about how his daddy can’t show affection.
I do not give a shit about any of that. I don’t need to see excruciatingly lame scenes of baby Bush picking up chicks in bars. I want a solid and hammering examination of the evil that’s been going on.
And adding (grrrrr wordpress killed my editing option): yes, Tim up there commented on a president and a vice president who commited henious war crimes. This is 100% true. Everytime a discussion arises here about the state of the world and the future presidencial election in America, I comment on the very serious FACT that Bush Jr IS a war criminal and should be subject to international court.
“I’d hate to take my kids to a circus where the clowns drop bombs on babies and torture teenage “detainees.” ” – yet that is EXACTLY what You’re doing right now – You and every american. Want to solve the problem? Remove the clowns from the show. You had a chance 3 years ago… You didn’t?
And now, welcome to the new age, the one YOU created. Now embarassed to look in the mirror because one of America’s most political directors decides to put this shame to film on a satyrical piece? Gosh.
You people haven’t realized the hole your president has sent the world into; in Europe many people have been warning for years now, the dangers of the change of the status quo, and the abruptal removal of America from its position of leader of the “free” world – nevermind economical rule, which it has lost circa 2007.
I’d add a letter to this “W”. The letter “U”, as in You, as in America really needs to look in a mirror.
Gosh, they’ll have to change the dictionary definition of being a grown-up to “agreeing with Markku”.
I have worked professionally with criminals who have done incredibly vile things. Most to some degree possess likeable qualities. I developed a detailed understanding of explanations for their harmful actions, some nature (personality) and some nurture. Did that change anything in terms of my basic attitudes towards them, not one iota. Because regardless of the reasons they’re still responsible for their actions, ones that created profound harm to others. I have no problem with assessment and analysis of what was behind Bush’s actions. Though figuring this out doesn’t seem like rocket science to me. If any of us require more insight into them than has already been overwhelmingly provided in the public arena, I doubt that a satirical piece that aspires to a Dr Strangelove like absurdist approach is going to offer them up.
i’ll give Stone the benefit of the doubt as well. he’s said it will play along the lines of DR STRANGELOVE, a thoroughly black comedy. that type of humor if taken out of context may indeed look odd on paper and better when presented on screen.
I believe grown-ups generally are able to deal with the fact that people who do evil things have families and backgrounds; hobbies and feelings and, most controversially of all, reasons for their actions.
I, for one, like Hollywood films far more when they don’t treat the audience with kid gloves.
“I don’t find war crimes very funny”
Amen. Hopefully this won’t end all future prospects for a good movie about Bush. He’s a terrible man, and a terrible president, but who knows, a good, solid, well-researched film could be truly interesting.
yikes… that should have been “allegedly”
For me, whether Stone and his collaborators can somehow translate a poor effort on the page into a film that artistically succeeds on its own terms is the least of the movie’s worries. As Ryan’s understandably raw reaction underscores, the biggest challenge to people having any interest in seeing the movie is its very conception and timing.
For example, I could see and enjoy Three Kings as a film set in the first Gulf War. Several years had passed, it was a relatively bloodless conflict, and there was at least the semblance of moral justification for it. In contrast, I couldn’t feel as comfortable about and open to the same story set in the second Gulf War or its seemingly endless aftermath of violence and deprivation.
It seems that with the exception of individuals with no moral compass most people feel various degrees of horror over what the Bush administration has wrought. How do we deal with such monumental wrongness? Two of the main ways is to get very angry or to try and not think about it. Neither reaction is going to produce interest in seeing the film.
Of all the things revealed here about the project the one that stands out as most unappealing to me is Stone’s interest in showing something of the human being in Bush. Of course Bush has regular and admirable human qualities, but I have absolutely no interest at present, and possibly ever, in focusing on them. Did the millions of people who suffered under Stalin or Hitler have an interest in stories, even satirical ones, that sought to humanize such men? Some might find the comparison to these vile dictators an exaggeration, that’s neither here nor there. The point is that the effects of the Bush administration’s actions are so acute and sadly ongoing that any effort to humanize its leader is naturally unappealing.
Ryan: normally, I agree with you on almost everything, but in this case, I must really disagree. As I see it, W is attempting to show us a lesser-known (but not all that unsurprising) side of our current president. I share many of your feelings towards the man, but I don’t need a film to confirm that. I’d rather see side of George that I haven’t seen before. Good Ole Boy and Markku are absolutely right.
I also think it’s WAY too presumptuous to be writing Brolin’s obit. First off, we haven’t seen the film yet, so who knows? Secondly, he also has MILK in his arsenal, and if that’s as good as it sounds and looks, it could easily wipe away any bad memories over this. Let’s step back and take a breather before we nail Josh’s coffin shut.
Can someone post a link to the entire script? I’d like to read it.
You’re right, war crimes aren’t funny, but when our government is broken and we can’t even get the impeachment of a president and vice president who have commited heinous war crimes, what is the artist’s option? To create their comments as best they can. Oliver Stone has handled Bush’s past — and since it’s becoming increasingly clear that the guilty parties will never be prosecuted, we had no choice but to satirize them — ergo — http://www.funwithwarcrimes.com
Justice most likely won’t be served in this case, so our psyche needs some sort of outlet — even if it’s make believe justice.
At this point, my sentiments are similar to those of filmboymichael — I’d rather take a wait-and-see attitude about this. Besides, it’s in my genetic nature to take a contrary view.
Admittedly, Stone tends to be a bit heavy-handed in most everything he does. But words on the page can be misleading. Just ask anyone who has read a Harold Pinter script.
Hi Ryan,
I think regardless of how this film does, Brolin may very well receive the awards buzz for his supporting work in the film “Milk” if that turns out to be good. Early talk is that the character is a tortured psychopath, so having him play this character with an ensemble cast inclugin Sean Penn and Emile Hirsch, he may very well receive accolades for his supporting work.
Wow Ryan….wow.
Hey Oliver, what happened man? Did you go back to the powdered stuff you were on when you scripted SCARFACE?
Anyway, off topic but why do people want to keep comparing Iraq to other wars? Right-wingers* want to use WW2, Leftists with Vietnam…..it’s silly.
*=Guys, how about using the Phillipines Insurrection instead of the Dubya Dubya 2 cliche? You know, those 3 years it took for us to conquer the Filipinos, who simply wanted the independence that we promised them, and became an American colony by force for what, 45 something years?
“You make some excellent points, Markku. It’s good that we both acknowledge that we are not debating the movie, because we haven’t seen the final result. You liked the script better than I did, and that’s ok. You point out some good things you liked, and I highlight some things I hate. It would be a boring discussion if we all agreed (but it’s a good way for me to find out who my friends are, ha! 😎 )”
Yeah, no problem. For all it’s faults, I find this project fascinating. And I absolutely understand your misgivings about it, too. Talk to you later, then.
“There is no right answer. And, the long term must be factored end too. Remember we bombed the hell out of Japan, and now they’re flourishing. I’m not saying it’s the morally right thing to do (who determines that?), but it worked out in the end.”
Worked out great!
Except for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese kids whose skin slipped off their irradiated bones.
but hey, take a look at those shiny Mitsubishis!
You make some excellent points, Markku. It’s good that we both acknowledge that we are not debating the movie, because we haven’t seen the final result. You liked the script better than I did, and that’s ok. You point out some good things you liked, and I highlight some things I hate. It would be a boring discussion if we all agreed (but it’s a good way for me to find out who my friends are, ha! 😎 )
“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.”
Great quote to pull out, and I respect it. But I think we can also agree that those films are not of equal value and some were more successful than others. I might be one of the 6 people on Earth who liked “Alexander” alright. I’m not that wild about “Nixon,” and I know I’m in the minority there too.
So for me, that list makes a good measurement scale or barometer. “W” will be one of three things. Equal to “Nixon,” better than, or worse than. Based on what I see and the other factors involved, right now I’m inclined to predict the third eventuality.
“Stone does very little to soften these qualities and admittedly, spending two-plus hours in his company is not exactly an appealing proposition.”
This is true. I can’t grab the remote fast enough whenever Bush shows his smirky puss on TV. “Ain’t I cute,” he seems to think. But he makes me ill. I’d feel the same way about any murderer who’s running free and prancing around in the media unscathed. That’s what I want from a Bush movie. I want it to be scathing. “W” doesn’t give me the raw meat I crave, ha.
But I don’t want to keep harping on what I think. I’ve said it already. This is fun but I probably won’t be around rejoin the discussion until later this afternoon, and I’m looking forward to seeing what’s been said when I come back to it.
So, talk amongst yourselves 😎 Kick, spit, pull each other’s hair, hug it out, whatever. Snark amongst yourselves.
“So if the screenwriter is not going to tell us anything important, then I wish he wouldn’t waste our time showing us a cutesy scene with Bush stealing Condi’s candy, ok”
Perhaps some people want to see this side of Bush. We see the political side of our President every day. It’s OK to show a lighter side. Also, I disagree that there is no “significant meaning” to Bush playing practical jokes. One might suggest that it illustrates the many facets of a human being. Sure, President Bush has his flaws, but he’s human (and has good traits as well). Being President aint easy. So, until someone actually steps into those shoes, I don’t see the point in play Monday morning quarterback. We’re in a precarious situation with this war. It seems like every decision can be scrutinized to some level. So, before we start anointing Obama as Christ our Lord, we have to realize that he too will be criticized greatly for how he handles foreign and domestic issues. There is no right answer. And, the long term must be factored end too. Remember we bombed the hell out of Japan, and now they’re flourishing. I’m not saying it’s the morally right thing to do (who determines that?), but it worked out in the end.
So, do you have the shooting draft, or are you basing your review from that early draft(alledgely first ) that’s been widely spread across the internet?
“It makes Bush look like a cute playful frat boy. When in fact he’s probably a seriously mentally warped individual responsible for the death and maiming of thousands of American troops, and lifelong tragedy for their families.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much how 90% of the world sees him (including Stone and, more or less, myself), but I don’t believe that’s how Bush sees himself. And as he is the protagonist of the script, we see the story from his point of view.
Stone: “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.”
The tragedy of the second Gulf War hangs above the film (how could it not: it’s the reason why this story is being told in the first place) but the script correctly portrays Bush and his neo-con buddies as flippant, ingorant and uncaring of the human suffering resulting from their decisions. Much like the Dave Karnes character in WTC, they are allowed to retain their delusions, Stone never steps outside their point-of-view to tell us his own: “Yeah, they’re stupid and wrong.” Instead, he gives us nothing but their side of the story: “This is how they felt, right or wrong.”
That Bush is an obnoxious “Good Ol’ Boy” with a potty mouth and a lame sense of humour is no secret in- or outside the Beltway. Stone does very little to soften these qualities and admittedly, spending two-plus hours in his company is not exactly an appealing proposition. I can understand why the script and very likely the film itself will annoy and even anger people, just as they already have.
I’ll admit the script has major problems, the chief one being that it feels at times like the annoying kid brother of the majestic and moving Nixon, which was equally (perhaps even more) sympathetic towards its widely loathed main character.
I actually agree with you Ryan. This sounds horrid. I am just surprised he was able to get such capable actors to do it. This very could well be Josh Brolins “Mommy Dearest” and end what was starting to become a promising career.
On the same link you provide, Markku, somebody points out:
“This poster is a sort of teaser teaser poster, quick made for Cannes Film Market during the Festival. It appeared on a double page in a (Variety ?) special edition only published in Cannes.”
So it’s not the poster; but it’s publicity material paid for by the studio, and I would assume approved by somebody. The poster/advertising is not the point at all, but I’m glad you mentioned it early so I could fix the phrase.
Here’s one of the problems, Markku. The scene I link to above has us watching Bush play around with knock-knock jokes and stealing candy from adults for 2 or 3 minutes. There’s no significant meaning conveyed, except that Bush is a douche, which we already knew.
Stealing candy mints is something that would bore me in any movie. Even Harold and Kumar couldn’t make that funny. Meanwhile, nowhere in the script is there any hint of what Halibuton has stolen and continues to steal. Nothing about the rape and theft and murder perpetrated by KBR and Blackwater. Nothing about those silly 8 Billion dollars in cash that was delivered on shipping palettes to Iraq, and just vanished, and we never hear about on the news anymore. Ooops, just gone. “Stuff happens.”
So if the screenwriter is not going to tell us anything important, then I wish he would’t waste our time showing us a cutesy scene with Bush stealing Condi’s candy, ok? That’s what’s wrong with this script. It makes Bush look like a cute playful frat boy. When in fact he’s probably a seriously mentally warped individual responsible for the death and maiming of thousands of American troops, and lifelong tragedy for their families.
So spare me the knock-knock jokes, is all I’m asking.
What did you expect, Ryan? Harold and Kumar 3: Harold and Kumar and George. Is it truly the movie that’s gotten you worked up or it’s subject? Surely it can’t be the fake poster that’s giving you headache: http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/archives/2008/06/w_teaser_actual.html
Apart from the stupid frat-boy scene at the beginning and the weak Blair-cameo, I felt the script wasn’t that bad. More dramatic than comedic, though.
I’ll be ready to change my opinion if somehow the tone and the ensemble acting enables Stone to pull this off, filmboymichael, but honestly I see a lot of scripts and this one was plain painful to read.
You’re right, we’re ready to get rid of this gang of war criminals, but laughing him out of office is too good for Bush. He should be impeached and imprisoned. Then I can joke about it.
“Thus ends this year’s Josh Brolin buzz?”
ah, Friedl, that’s a kind way to phrase it. I feel bad for Brolin, for sure. Last year he was in 3 of the hottest/coolest movies of his career, and now this.
If anybody is curious to see what some of these scenes would look like acted out, some bright youtube kids have given us a preview.
I reserve to pass judgement when I see the film…then, and only then will we be able to see what kind of film this is…that being said, I AM a Canadian, and maybe the embarrassment of who and what your president has done – let’s face it, he is a huge war criminal that has remained untouched – that you’re just ready to get rid of him already and have someone fresh and new in the whitehouse.
“Any chance that Stone is trying to make W a satirical film?”
maybe k, but if so it’s extremely weak and flat. Satire should be sharp, not bluntly clumsy. The script reads like a cheap sit-com. It’s no Mark Twain, I promise you.
Next up from Oliver Stone, a delightful satiric romp about that lunatic father who beat his little boy to death in the middle of the highway last week.
Ugh. I had a feeling it would turn out this way. I have been skeptical of this project from the beginning and this confirms my initial reservations.
Any chance that Stone is trying to make W a satirical film?
Thus ends this year’s Josh Brolin buzz?
Heh, I doubt wether the transportation guy cares anything about making such a film. He’s just glad to have a job these days ;).
Anyhow, we’ll see how it turns out. It’ll probably be no better than the average Michael Moore rant.