Oliver Stone's new George W. Bush biopic (or "dramatization" or whatever one calls a life story retold with poetic license) seems, even in comparison to every other Oliver Stone movie, like the wrong movie at the wrong time. The acting may be great, it may be funny, it may be accurate, and it may cure cancer after two viewings, but….who in the hell actually wants to watch a movie about George W. Bush after seven years and nine months of living the George W. Bush experience?
Matthew Brady, undoubtedly the most important (and first) photojournalist, is famous today for the thousands of uncensored images he made of the American Civil War.** What is often forgotten is that immediately after the War he went bankrupt and died penniless, many of his images being destroyed in the process. It wasn't because his pictures were not gripping or lacked artistic merit – it was simply that after the Civil War, no one wanted to look at pictures of the Civil War.
Stone's film might have been the perfect movie for 2011. Maybe at that point we will have gained enough distance from these events to appreciate them as a source of comedy, irony, or entertainment. Right now it feels a little like expecting the public in 1866 to pay to see photos of mangled, bloody Union soldiers and burnt villages.
buy synthroid online buy synthroid no prescription
Maybe I am incorrect and the public will flock to see the film, but I very much doubt it. Sticking with the Civil War theme, when Booth's co-conspirators were executed in 1865, a newspaper called the Evening Star stated:
The last act of the tragedy of the 19th century is ended, and the curtain dropped forever upon the lives of its actors. Payne, Herold, Atzerodt and Mrs.
buy stromectol online www.sterlingchiropractortherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/png/stromectol.html no prescription pharmacybuy temovate online buy temovate no prescription
Surratt have paid the penalty of their awful crime. In the bright sunlight of this summer day the wretched criminals have been hurried into eternity…buy flagyl online www.sterlingchiropractortherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/png/flagyl.html no prescription pharmacyWe want to know their names no more.
buy amoxil online www.sterlingchiropractortherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/png/amoxil.html no prescription pharmacy
That is the best summary of how I feel about this administration and everyone responsible for the events of the last eight years. There will come a time when I want to think about them in great detail, but it certainly is not now.
**He also photographed 18 of the 19 presidents between 1824 and 1900, excepting only William Henry Harrison, and is responsible for the only extant photographs of six presidents. Among them is John Quincy Adams, the earliest president (chronologically) to be photographed, albeit late in his life and many years after he left office. The first president to be photographed while in office, also by Brady, was John Tyler.
Scott says:
I disagree with the comparison between Stone and Brady. Oliver Stone is an artist and can choose, with almost infinite variety, what he would like to make a movie about. Journalists, on the other hand, are obligated to report and document what they see.
I can understand that war-weary Americans in 1866 did not want to look at pictures of dead soldiers, but that doesn't make it any less important. I can also understand why war-weary Americans in 2008 won't want to look at a film about George W. Bush. In this case, however, it's not important, it just seems petty.
J. Dryden says:
I second the notion that it's too soon, as evidenced by my reaction to the HBO movie "Recount," which left me sickened and miserable in depicting the godawful nightmare we collectively ushered in, and this seven years after the fact. Whether one wants to credit external events (9/11, Katrina, etc.) or fault the administration and the spineless Legislature, the last eight years have been an ugly, miserable time for us. Economically, diplomatically, infrastructurally, culturally we are fucked, and whether Bush is to blame or was just along for the ride or even (are there still people who think this?) stemmed the tide of misery, it doesn't matter; the story of his presidency is a story of a series of unbroken humiliations for our country, the emotional effect of which appears not to have touched him at all. (Though he has at least had the courtesy of growing old in office, suggesting that at least some part of him was awake much of the time.) Stone's timing has been excellent in the past–the midst of the Reagan era's jingoism was the perfect time to tell the story of PLATOON, for instance, and WALL STREET reads as a timely satire that we might have done well to heed. But the past eight years have been terrible ones, and watching this movie will be like being forced to watch the highlight reel right at the end of the losingest season your favorite team ever had. No, thanks.
kulkuri says:
When the Busheney regime is all sitting in prison, that will the right time to watch "W".
Mike says:
Though it's not a very good movie, I have such a soft-spot for Stone's "Nixon", I'll probably see this.
Ed: Assuming, as it looks, that this movie is a prime example of a new narrative about the Bush years – W. was a more or less doofus, and all the real control, rot and evil is in his cabinet and VP chair, along with the army of Goodling-esque true believers and lobbyists who staffed the government; what do you think of that? Lets Bush off too easy? Isn't accurate?
Ed says:
I think the long verdict of history will closely resemble what you described. The impression is and will continue to be that Bush is a prop who fronted a group of people who could never get elected themselves. He was essentially the only way to get Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld into the white house.
I do think he is more professional/mature/serious than the Stone previews make it seem, but his fundamental problem is that he compensates for his total lack of intellectual curiosity with "gut" and "instinct." He's probably not too dumb to understand things – he just doesn't want conflicting information.
His pattern, dating back to the days in Texas, is to have this small group of people he "trusts" and on whom he relies for everything. So his attitude was never "Let's see all of the intelligence information on Iraq". It was "Rummy, tell me about Iraq."
pmayo says:
I think Stone's take on President Bush is the worst take. To paint him as a bmbling oaf disarms him. It takes all the insidious, cruel, malorodrous bits and chalks them up to sublime ignorance. Yes, the man is a bit dim, but if he is stupid, he is dangerously so. On top of this, he is a cruel man. In reality, he's a stupid like a fox and just as predatory, but Stone allows him to be a pitiable moron.