Blogs and Stories
My W and Oliver Stone's
)
Sidney Ray Baldwin/Lionsgate
Scott McClellan, Bush's estranged former press secretary, on what the movie nails (his stubbornness and his relationship with his father)—and what it screws up.
Many months ago, I came to grips with the fact that the Bush presidency did not turn out the way many of us who went to work for him had hoped. Maybe that’s why the initial strangeness of Oliver Stone’s W. quickly dissipated. Just like any other movie I might go see, I soon was leaning back in my chair with an open mind ready to be entertained. It was not long before Stone’s perspective on what happened piqued my curiosity.
If there is anything the 41st and 43rd presidents have in common, it is their shared contempt for psychoanalysis, or being put on the couch. Yet there are few things more important when choosing a president than looking beyond the candidates’ elaborately crafted political façades to understand what really drives them and makes them tick.
I won’t go as far as to borrow a line from Bush 43 and say, “Heck of a job, Stonie.” But I will borrow one from Bush 41 and say, “It’s good, not bad.”
The father-son dynamic Oliver Stone explores throughout W. is what I found most intriguing about his biopic. As the movie intermittingly flashes from past to present, the audience sees how the formative, early adult years of W (ably played by Josh Brolin) and the strained relationship with his father (James Cromwell) eventually come to shape his decision-making and governing style inside the White House, mostly as it relates to Iraq. The carefree young Bush inspires little confidence and much disappointment in the father, who disdains his son’s wild socializing, lack of intellectual vigor, and aimless drifting from job-to-job.
With competitive zeal, Bush sets out to outperform Poppy by learning from his political shortcomings. But his obsessive desire to achieve greatness pushes W to overreach, pursuing an idealistic and ambitious vision of defining his legacy by the spread of freedom in the Middle East that proves to be nothing but an elusive dream. In the end, the once cocksure president is left struggling to come to grips with reality.
That’s the story told by the film. But is it true? Here’s the judgment of one person who saw many—not all—of the real events as they unfolded.
At best, Stone’s interpretation is educated conjecture. He takes plenty of liberties with the facts, a story-telling strategy he considers justified in order to get at larger truths in a 2-hour movie. As a result, the real-life complexities of the characters and events are left unexplored.
The extent to which George W. Bush was driven by a desire to earn his father’s respect remains unknown. Getting inside someone’s head is not easy, even more so when it involves a member of the protective Bush clan. Those private father-son moments were just that—private—and neither 41 or 43 nor any other family member who might have been nearby has cared to share any insights into the relationship.
)
Sidney Ray Baldwin/Lionsgate
Nevertheless, I think it would be wrong to discount the relationship as insignificant. There has always been a certain element in the younger Bush that seeks to distinguish himself from his father. In real life as in the movie, he sought to avoid what he perceived as his father’s most costly political mistakes. He overcompensated to avoid being perceived as indecisive—which led him instead to be perceived as unwilling to acknowledge his mistakes and change. He overemphasized social issues to keep the base happy—taking focus away from issues of most concern to the vital center. And he overreached in trying to be bold and visionary—resulting in a unnecessary war that has dragged on far too long and been far too costly.
The movie also depicts W as politically astute and calculating, thanks largely to the help of his ever-present political mentor Karl Rove (Toby Jones). In the movie, Bush’s every move has underlying political motives.
For example, during a war council meeting in the Situation Room, Richard Dreyfuss’ Cheney fervently works to persuade the president about the need to invade Iraq for the sake of its oil reserves. W shifts the focus to selling the conflict to the public. For the “average Joe,” Bush asserts, “It’s not about oil. It’s about 9/11 and terrorists.” Brolin’s Bush is always thinking about how best to sell his policies to the public, intellectual honesty aside.
This rings true. President Bush was always concerned about how we would sell the “big items.” The White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was specifically formed to market war to the American people. Too often, candor took a back seat to making the most compelling case.
Overall, as should be expected from the high-caliber cast, the acting was fabulous. Brolin rightly deserves kudos for his portrayal of Bush. He has the swagger down, and does a decent job on Bush’s voice and gestures. The president’s eating habits were overdone, but not completely off the mark (you will know what I mean when you see the movie). The attractive and engaging Elizabeth Banks plays a charming Laura Bush. Dreyfuss nails his inner Cheney, a conniving vice president who believes the president’s wartime powers are virtually unlimited and that the ends justify the means. Jeffrey Wright does an excellent job capturing Colin Powell’s strong dissenting voice, if not his physical presence. The most unflattering portrayal was that of Condi Rice, caricatured by Thandie Newton as a mere yes–woman, which is excessively denigrating but not entirely without basis.
There are a number of inaccuracies in the movie, some grounded in Stone’s satirical impulse. (Maybe I was too close to the real-life situations to laugh at those moments.)
)
Sidney Ray Baldwin/Lionsgate
At times, Brolin’s Bush comes across borderline village idiot. “Iran is not Iraq, and Iraq is not Iran. I know that much,” W declares at one point to his assembled war council. In a press conference, he refers to a journalist of Asian ethnicity as “Miss China.” The George W. Bush I know is no rocket scientist (as he’d be the first to admit), but he’s no simpleton either.
Stone also exaggerates in painting Bush as a simple-minded born-again Christian. President Bush is a man of deep personal faith who may have felt a calling to enter politics, but he never came across to me as presuming to know God’s will. Nor does he consider himself an evangelical Christian or fundamentalist Baptist (though along with Rove he placed a high priority on keeping that wing of the Republican base happy).
I also felt it was grossly unfair to portray Bush as merrily oblivious and somewhat smug when visiting wounded soldiers at a military hospital. Having been at President Bush’s side during such visits, I know they were somber, emotionally-draining moments for him. They were also probably the only time I ever noticed self-doubt creep into his eyes, however fleetingly, as he confronted the terrible human costs of his misguided, instinctive decision to rush into an unnecessary war.
But W. is a drama, not an historical documentary. Stone tries to play it fairly straight. Even if he misses the mark at times, he deserves credit for the glimpses of inner truth he provides, which can only be instructive, especially as we prepare to elect a new president.
My guess is the most vocal Bush critics will view Stone’s account as too soft on Bush and his top advisers, while Bush’s chief advocates will ignore and dismiss it. But I think the average Joe just might find it entertaining and thought-provoking. I won’t go as far as to borrow a line from Bush 43 and say, “Heck of a job, Stonie.” But I will borrow one from Bush 41 and say, “It’s good, not bad.”
Scott McClellan is a former White House Press Secretary and author of the No. 1 New York Times best-seller What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception.
Bringing Down Bachmann
Benjamin Sarlin is a reporter for The Daily Beast. He previously covered New York City politics for The New York Sun and has worked for talkingpointsmemo.com.
America's Hot Jobs (and Not Jobs)
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Nicolas Cage, Compulsive Spender
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
The ads for the movie have me cracking up. I told a friend today that Bush will go down in history as the most unpopular president ever. I plan on seeing it wearing my "Obama '08" T shirt.
Who'd a thought, truth from a WH Press Secretary for 43? Is it?
the half dozen reviews I've just read leave me wondering if Oliver Stone understands the lasting effects of starting to drink at an early age. Typically, the alcohol abuser gets emotionally "stuck" at the age when the abuse started, and that can last for a long time, during and after recovery. Of course, it doesn't seem that W. ever went in to a recovery program, and so much of his behavior is that of a cocky adolescent. That seems to me to be at least as important as the father relationship.
I lost my copy of JHK so maybe i'll wait for netflix.I'm hopeing the next great biography will be "O"
sandman
Scottie, you're like a man who thought he was mute and who has suddenly discovered that he can not only speak, but he can sing beautifully.
Your whole face has changed since you woke up from your time in Purgatory. You went from every muscle in your face looking clenched and pasty to looking relaxed, healthy and even happy.
Telling the truth is so liberating, isn't it?
While Bush might not be a simpleton in the literal sense of the word, his conduct has been. His intellectual laziness, incapacity or unwillingness to engage in complex thought or to demand any kind of personal rigor have securely left the nation at the direction and under the complete control of Cheney.
Ruthless Cheney. Puppet Bush. Now for the aftermath...and whatever clean-up is even possible.
I can only hope that history will document who has been the acting President during the two terms of the Administration and that it will take them both fully to account.
It's difficult, if not impossible, to imagine a worse President than George W / Cheney have been at every level of functioning. Nothing, absolutely redeeming. An unjustified, pre-emptive war that was unrelated to the causes of 9/11, that has intensified terrorism, that was sold with lies, which has left Iran the dominant power in the Middle East and Al Qaeda rising in Afganistan. Torture. Blatant and wholesale selling off of government functioning to the highest bidder. And the capstone: an economic meltdown, with 53 trillion in unmet liabilities waiting to bury us all and swallow the future whole.
But the wealthiest of the wealthy had their tax breaks ... and they pandered to the Christian base, so what the hell!
the tragedy that we americans elected Bush. and the brutal ignorance about the lethal nature of islam before 9/11 is it not only of Bush. let see if the daily beast has the courage to write about the despicable regime of saudi arabia.
I can hardly wait to see how OS portrays the current democratic congress in his next movie. What? A 15% approval rating is not low enough to make them worthy subject matter. Unfair!
Is everyone on this thread on Obama's campaign team? ...you're all singing the same talking points I hear on MSNBC every day. How about some original thoughts for a change?
I know what cstuple means about the thread but I've found Beast more "fair and balanced" than the hysterical MSNBC. Loved McCain's line at the Al Smith roast about the padded cell that will be needed, if he wins after all, for over-the-top Olberman
Ah, cstuple! Just because Republicans can't agree on anything anymore doesn't mean the rest of us can't move into the future in enlightened comity! Y'all go on with your cartoonish bellyaching, but please try to keep the noise down, OK? The grownups are busy restoring America's promise.
And, btw, why is it that those who complain about MSNBC being extreme never cite anything statement in particular? Is it because their problem is with the startling extremity of fact and reason? I know how upsetting clarity can be when one is used to wallowing in the mud.
Oh, and I'm always happy to see Mr. McClellan doing honest work. I thought then he was used and lied to when at the White House. No one could have said such things with such a straight face unless he believed they were true.
Nice review, too!
There is no mystery as to why Oliver Stone is releasing his politically motivated film at this juncture. In Hollywood, timing is everything. The intent is transparent.
Wow. . .candor. . .what a novel idea!
I must admit. I love President George W. Bush. I mean by-golly, I voted for him. . .twice! He reminds me of all the Daddy's that would come by the sorority house when I was in college at Ole Miss. They were the well dressed old money Delta Dad's that would swoop into Oxford, take all your friends to dinner, make ya mint juleps in The Grove and talk out their rear ends about business, politics and the stock market (all subjects that not a one has much proficiency).
But. . .I digress. I voted for The Pres because. . .well. . .I would like to have a beer (or mint julep) with the guy. Intellectual accumen be darned. Just like those well dressed Daddy's that still call their wive's "darlin'," who took us to nice dinners and bought us bourbon, I liked him. I trusted him. He got my vote.
Shame on me.
Lesson learned. I still would love to have a beer with the guy, but for my next presidential ballot, I think I will casting my vote for someone with a bit less charm and gumption and a bit more discernment.
look forward to this one..
Hey Scott, I saw your mom the other day at the vet's and told her I was proud of what you (finally) did, coming clean on Bush. She beamed with pride at my praise.
I was sorry later that I hadn't then asked her if she's come back from the Dark Side.
Great review here. You're redeeming yourself everyday.
Hee Hee Hee!
GlobalGramma said it best. Amen!
Not a single penny of domestic funding behind the production... Komrad OS behind the cameras... nothing but leftist, whining Hollywood coward-pukes in front of them... a perfectly-timed 16 days before the election release... and you sniveling, out-of-power Barney Frank wannabes expect anybody... ANYbody... to take this seriously?
Hatchet job... poorly planned and pitifully executed hatchet job.
You all sound like children... especially the MSNBC talking pointers among you. GlobalGramma, you should be ashamed of yourself... so eloquent, yet so doctrinaire.
Come to think of it, why in the hell am I even bothering to notice this drivel?
I need a shower..... or three.
I do not understand why the discussion of Bush's relationship with his father is always in terms of W trying to impress Poppy, as McClellan says here. W's actions, including those McClellan describes, point towards his wanting to show up his father by beating him at his own game, humiliating rather than impressing the first President Bush. Why else refuse to consult with his father, undo many of his policies, reject his fathers correct opinion that going into Baghdad would put us in the middle of a quagmire, etc. The examples are numerous and blatant. W's attitude towards his father was not an attempt to gain his respect, it was a slap in the face. The fight depicted in the movie is ongoing and we all are paying the price for W's unresolved Oedipal issues.
I saw the film this morning in NYC, (a discounted 10am start time for $6, which btw is all any movie should cost) in a big theatre that was very full. I had the same feeling about "W." as I did about the HBO movie "Recount", at times both these movies were hard to watch, they made me feel anger and sad that these things could have happened. At the end of W. there was a good deal of applause. I, on the other hand, hung my head and practically cried. Kudos Scott for a well written review and the courage to share.
Southpaw, answer one question for me. Why do all you repugs resort to childish namecalling and blather every time someone says or writes something you don't agree with? Is it because you never made it past the 6th grade or because schools are so evil?
Why would W's drifting be from "job-to-job?" Why not from job to job, ending with the presidency, for surely he will never have a job again.
Thank you for sharing your views on this. I appreciate your nuanced approach to the topic. As I watched this film, I felt certain that Stone had struck close to home on some things and oversimplified others. Isn't every man burdened with living up to daddy?
I also had a hard time understanding why the Laura Bush character would be interested in W.
The biggest travesty of the film was the Rice character, mostly because the characterization was just too flat and distracting.
Hey Scott, thanks for the review. I'm glad that someone who knows W, enjoyed the movie like a lot of us who don't. After reading your book, and Weisberg's "The Bush Tragedy", I began to realize how ordinary of a person Bush is. Stone's movie reinforced that. No one knows if their decisions would have been any different if they were H. W. Bush's son, Junior. There's a poignant moment with the minister when W points out the great burden that accompanies the silver spoon with which he was raised. I've spent 8 years feeling very outraged at this president's absurd stubborness and thoughtlessness. After reading these books and viewing the movie, I'm surprised I feel empathic for both George Bush 1 and 2. W's combative relationship with Poppy thoroughly shaped his life and outlook.
I'm glad that you thought that the Oedipal issues were relevant. Oh, one more thing: Can u ask the other Republicans to quit insinuating that Obama is connected to terrorists? This BS is so beyond any imaginable partisan desperation. Even W wouldn't sink so low as to accuse a political opponent of being an anti-American terrorist traitor! Right? Please say I'm right
Stone has said that, far from the village idiot, Bush is a man with a terribly sharp sort of animal cunning. I agree that in the film W comes off as a simpleton and to that degree I think Stone failed in realizing his own vision.
McClellan's perspective on visiting the wounded troops is interesting, because when recalling W's shameful "comedy routine" at the correspondents' dinner several years ago where he jokingly hunted around for WMDs in the dining area it was not at all difficult to imagine him showing gross insensitivity around wounded soldiers. So that bit of fact checking is appreciated.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.