"In history we'll all be dead." -- W.

The film certainly hammers away at the Poppy-Dubyah conflict where the son can never get enough of his daddy's love.

I don't know about the film being carefully researched though. I felt Stone was "remixing" Bush into a media-vision of the man rather than trying to dig dip to uncover the "real" or "hidden" Bush.

I see that a lot of critics are playing up the "sympathetic" angle but I find that a bit extreme. Perhaps they expected a sledgehammer attack from Stone, and were surprised by something a bit more nuanced. So Bush isn't a mean-spirited guy, just a guy with daddy issues and a lazy mind: he meant well but didn't care enough to ask questions when plunging the nation into war. This is sympathetic? Understandable, I get. Sympathetic, no.

I posted my likely minority-opinion review here (shameless self-plug):

http://www.dvdtown.com/news/theatrical-review-of-w/6026

CL: I like your observation about W. as a guy who "goes with his gut," since that's his own self-flattering characterization of himself, too. Really, he's just clueless. Not necessarily stupid, just obtuse, unaware. But, as you say:

If the best thing that can be said about our soon-to-be ex-President is that he meant well but simply didn´t care enough to ask questions on the road to disaster, he hardly qualifies as sympathetic. He´s just the kind of guy you want to have a beer with.

(On the other hand, what would you possibly talk about over a beer with someone like that? I guess it would just make you want to drink more...)

In case anybody cares: I never hated GW Bush until September 11, 2001 (I remember where I was, all day), when he pulled his disappearing act for most of the day (what, they don't have broadcast facilities aboard Air Force One?) and then showed up looking like scared bunny who'd just popped up out of a hidey-hole. I knew he was no leader, but that's when I knew we were doomed. His spectacular failure to mobilize an unprecedentedly united country, and world, over the next few precious weeks (and now, years) has earned him one of those Special Places in Hell -- er, History -- that are reserved only for those who do great damage while remaining utterly incapable of understanding what's happening. I once thought that W. would be horrified, crushed, when he emerged from his bubble after leaving office and found out what he'd enabled while believing he was in charge. But of course he won't because he's devoid of intellectual curiosity -- not just about others, but about himself. Every time I see that ever-blank face and hear that detached voice I think of that John Lennon song: "You can live a lie until you die / One thing you can't hide / Is when you're crippled inside." Those "Daily Show" clips of him at Guernsey Office Products are as horrifying as any moments from his horror-movie presidency. He hasn't grown at all in eight years. He's still the same old not-present-at-the-event W.

I have a fear that the "timely" release of W. may work to backfire on liberal and even part-time liberals like Oliver Stone. Michael Moore's documentary on the subject of 9/11 and Bush served to galvanize the right. They felt insulted, even if Moore embellished his facts and made Bush out to be a madman or an idiot. I have fears about the far-right. I do not underestimate them, and as much as the liberals, the far left, and the Democratic Party would love to ignore them, they are still part of our country, part of our voting public, and have the power to influence and manipulate the rest of the County.

I think back to Lincoln. He was not a very popular President. He was hated by Davis and the rest of the South years before his election, and Davis swore to secede should Lincoln ever be elected because he was convinced Lincoln would give the South short shrift on finances, which is why Davis began printing his own money months before the general elections. Lincoln was hated by many in the Union for not giving concessions to Davis. He was blasted in the Media. He was called an "idiot", but now look at the rules of history - he's considered a god (as is FDR, who was also routinely bashed in the Media for merely inheriting a failing economy when he took office). We're talking about a war of North vs. South - all those family/generational values, concepts of ownership, a stuttering economy - sound familiar? The Civil War had a lot less to do with the notion of slavery than a lot of political groups would care to admit. It had more to do with money, as in most wars.

This, by no means, qualifies Bush as a Lincoln, but his assumption may very well be correct that History will be kinder to him than we, and until the Democrats, the liberals, and the far-left take their game to the Republicans and attempt to understand them, appreciate, or even empathize with them, they will not win their hearts and minds.

DL: I wonder if "W." can have much mpact at all, right here and right now. A movie about President Ford might be more timely.

I have little regard for Moore or Stone (from "NBK" onward), or the intellectual honesty of their films. But, to paraphrase Harry G. Frankfurt in his best-selling "On Bullshit," they respect the truth enough to deliberately lie about it, whereas W. doesn't believe in any objective distinction. He cares to believe what he cares to believe, and that's the end (and the point) of the discussion.

I think history will judge Americans of the early 21st century just as harshly as it will W. After all, we apparently elected him twice and nobody can honestly say they didn't know what they were getting. Unless they -- like W. -- simply didn't bother to find out. (I'm using "Dubya" as George W. Bush's preferred nickname for himself -- and out of respect for the father, whose failed Bush presidency looks like a triumph next to his son's.)

One thing about Bush that will always bother me - more than his "daddy issues" - is that he gets a pass when given the "Christian values" test. It's one angle that I think the press has really dropped the ball on.

Look at all the lives that have been lost in his bogus war in Iraq. Look at the prisoner torture scandal. Look at his stance on extraordinary rendition. Look at his reaction when the poor people in New Orleans were drowning. Look at the Valerie Plame affair. Look at the illegal wiretapping, and the unjust firing of U.S. attorneys who were unwilling to play his partisan games.

And yet, to this day, I run into Bush supporters who speak of our "godly president" with his "high moral and Christian values."

As a Christian, I shudder to think about the example he's set for skeptics and non-believers.

And, to top this all off, just a few days back, I got yet another e-mail telling me I wasn't voting for Christian values if I wasn't voting Republican this election.

I guess I'm going to hell then. *sigh*

I'm about as left as they come, and campaigned so hard for Kerry (or against Bush) in 2004 that I suffered something of a moderate depression in the months thereafter (case in point: on November 3rd, 2004, I went to the multiplex to catch "Saw", which sufficed as a pick-me-up, piece of crap it was notwithstanding).

That being said: I absolutely feel sorry for Bush. I might disagree with some 60-80% or more of his politics, but the man is nothing if not a terribly transparent puppet. I have to wonder if the man was ever totally aware of everything going on around him. When it comes down to the wire, I think that God, karma, or whatever you want to call it, is going to be much kinder to Dubya than Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the like. To them, I dedicate Bob Dylan's "Masters of War." And Black Sabbath's "War Pigs." If they haven't begun their atonement, they'd better.

Jim you live in Seattle, where it was screened for critics. But I'd like to know who's airheaded idea it was to not pre-screen the film in Portland, a liberal and cinema-loving city if there ever was one, and thereby forfeiting cover stories in The Oregonian, Willamette Week, and The Portland Tribune.

Btw, before you comment on W. did you see An American Carol, and what did you think?

I was sure taken aback by Ebert's 4 star review of "W"!! That was a real surprise. I read his review of Tru Loved, where he walked out after 8 minutes. Too bad. At the 11 minute mark, the film showed Sarah Palin kicking a puppy and John McCain stiffing a waiter. That would have knocked the review up to at least 3.5 stars with a bullet. When you combine his man-crush, hero worshiping (He did give raves to Eyes Wide Shut and Bringing out the dead)and his utterly embarrassing lack of ability to divorce his own political beliefs from his critical duties, I was expecting an 8 star review.

This movie will make some but not a lot of money, just like most of Stone's films. He will then be able to make more films that few will see and fewer will remember. He is a gifted director who allows his collosal ego and sanctimony to get the best of him. An honestly made "JFK", one that had the fortitude to look at Jim Garrison for what he was would have been iconic. (Wouldn't portraying him truthfully have made the conspiracy issues that much more dramatic?) He made the only boring film about football ever made. U TURN!!! I repeat U TURN!! He wrote Conan.

Each of his most celebrated films contains a portrayal of good and evil so simplistic and childish, on wonders if he really has any brains at all. Kind of a rant I know but Stone's films uusally make me lose my train of ....whatever.

"I wonder if "W." can have much impact at all, right here and right now."

I think it can have great impact... but not in the way you think, Jim. More like in the way Roger Ebert thinks.

Now you may not agree with me on this but I think you tend to think in terms of opposition, confrontation, criticism, intellctual debate, factual truth seeking etc. As a critic, this is your right and it makes up an important part of criticism. I think it also explains your inclination towards movies like Zodiac. (I love Zodiac, it's one of the truly essential movies of this decade... that's another discussion... also, on a side note, why didn't it get nominated for any Oscars? Not romantic, 'epic' or political enough... but that's another discussion too...)

Roger thinks more in terms of the Woody Allen quote "the brain is the most overrated human organ". He's sensitive. He thinks, yes, but not as much as he feels. He lets his heart guide him. He's sympathetic. He likes humanist movies about redemption, healing, empathy. Naturally, he gave W. 4 stars. (He's the film's most enthusiastic supporter...)

Last time I checked Rotten Tomatoes, W. was at about 56% fresh. In other words, mixed reviews and/or critics with drastically different views on it.

The most common complaints seem to be: not intellectually challenging enough (too hammy a take on the father/son relationship), made too son and thus not enough insight (a lot of defining events of his presidency are missing, et cetera) and made too late to take him out of office (or influence American perception).

I'm not saying whose side I'm on but maybe Ebert believes the film has done something more profound than pointing out his obvious bad decisions or becoming a rehash of the wave of Moore, 9/11, War in Iraq, ecomonic crises, et cetera documentaries. Stone has simply understand Bush Jr., rather than get caught up in what we're hearing in presidential debates right now.

Everyone is angry. Everyone is cynical about what happen. Everyone has poked fun at and vehemently criticized W., the worst president in U.S. history. Politically, everyone has been negative.

Maybe the film will make a huge difference in HEALING Americans right now. (Sort of like how Obama has been avoiding getting angry and focusing on negative. He's focused on bringing America together for change.)

Maybe our faith in politics will return upon realizing it wasn't politics that failed, it was who we elected. And he wasn't a villain. He was just an idiot with deep psychological vulnerability. It's difficult to hate people when they're too dumb to know what they did wrong and when life set them up to fail miserably... or, more like, obliviously.
At least, IMO.

And that's why I have some faith that I may like the movie (and will be seeing it tonight hopefully!) And also why I still have faith that America can eventually recover from the damage the Bush administration has done to it.

And I think it also brings up an interesting contrast between your more intellectual, confrontational, into the darkness venturing, fact exposing and-dare-I-say-angrier approach and Ebert's sympathetic empathyism and love (some might say weakness) for films that try to inspire humanity by loving their subjects rather than dragging them through the mud (like... let's say... Blue Velvet does to its characters or Ebert would argue Fight Club does to its characters).

Of course, there are those that insist some people need to be dragged through the mud. Again, I'm not picking sides (other than to say I dislike Blue Velvet but love Fight Club) and I enjoy hearing opinions from the both of you. This is just my opinion on your opinions.

And it's highly relevant to your doubts about W. and Ebert saying there's no other word for it than 'fascinating'.

Karlos: You offer some fascinating points yourself. Your take on "W." sounds very much like the quotation I cited from Jacob Weinberg, and with which I am in sympathy:

"As I've tried to understand more deeply who he is, what he thinks, and why he does what he does, the question of blame has become less interesting to me."

It also seems to me that the desire for "healing" you describe is exactly what many potential voters say they are responding to in Obama's calm demeanor. He's logical AND doesn't let emotion (especially anger) overcome him. That's why I wonder if many Americans are interested in looking back right now. As a country, we seem more concerned with moving ahead, out of the bitterness and cynicism in which we've been mired and toward some kind of hope -- optimism that broken systems can be healed and made better than they were before.

I saw it. My impression is that the film is good enough as is, pulled through by Brolin and the strong cast, but it's still a work in progress. It's obviously a much longer film, perhaps 2.5 to 3 hours, cut down to 2 hours, and an R rated film with the F-bombs looped over. There were a lot of scenes that were in the trailer that were left out, and there were some clips on YouTube as a part of a mash-up contest that included several scenes not in the film (that's probably why they're no longer there). They included more scenes developing Bush's faith, included a part for Michael Shannon. There has to be more footage involving Tony Blair, and I gather there were also some scenes involving Saddam that were cut.

The beginning is choppy, and there's some scenes that I thought should have been put in different order (a scene where Bush Sr. pledges his support to his son to a TV interviewer should have been after we see Bush Jr's nightmare vision of him). And the scenes involving the early days of the Iraq war and the aircraft landing are the weakest, basically a shot for shot remake of that portion of Fahrenheit 9/11.

But aside from that, I think the movie hits its stride after all the players are laid out. Individual actors don't have a lot to do, but as an ensemble they create a Robert Altman effect. Banks, Jones, Burstyn, and Dreyfuss are all good at being interesting just as a background presence. The second scene is remarkably surreal: the wide shot of the entire cabinet looks a lot like the front cover illustration of Halberstam's The Best and the Brightest (maybe deliberately). Brolin gives a strong steady performance, without any weak moments. Cromwell is missing a conclusion, which is a little disappointing given that he has one strong emotional scene without a payoff (like i said, I think a couple of his scenes should have been in different order).

The production designer was the same one who did Into the Wild, and the movie has the same vivid sense of liveliness in detail and atmosphere.

That's my observations for now.

I should add that I think the film might be fascinating as a rorschach test, given that during the screening a heard laughter at very disparate points in the movie, and some sniffling. The original music is also an interesting choice: it often sounds like the score for Peanuts.

How annoying right-wingers are anymore. I love the guy above comparing Bush to Lincoln. Then denying he did that. You know, though, if you add Bush's presidency to Lincoln's, then divide by 2, you get- a perfectly acceptable, entirely average, presidency. So there's that.

This man and the morons who voted for him, and the monsters in his administration, will not somehow be vindicated by history. History will, in fact, probably- if this is possible- see them as even worse, even more blameworthy and shameful and stupid and evil, than we do today. There will come a time- and it might not be in this country, but then this country won't reign much longer- when the historians and intellectuals of some leading nation take a long hard look at the contemporary US, and objectively report that perhaps half the country- half the population, half the politicians, and far more than half of the media- was retarded, derelict in its duty, or both. History will savage this culture.

Preface: My humble apologies to readers for spelling and grammatical errors, missing words and a general lack of proofreading in my first post.

Jim, to follow up on your follow up, sorry for implying you didn't sympathize with Weinberg's article. I 'misunderestimated' you.

As a regular follower of your site, I have an impression of you as a cerebral critic, skeptic by nature and tending to stand by those films provoking audiences rather than soothing them. Based on that not so nuanced (and perhaps bordering on caricature) judgement of you, I tossed you into a category of critics who either have or will complain that the 'W.' is approached too conventionally and that the film doesn't hold the man accountable when it should.

I then proceeded to argue that the movie might on the other hand work as an emotional experience of dubya (hence Ebert's praise) and that holding him and his obliviousness accountable would also mean holding all those oblivious Americans who voted for him accountable too and maybe that's not what what we need right now. Instead, understanding the man and his flaws (and therefore ours as well) and moving on with that knowledge is important to American's mind, spirit and overall self esteem when both self criticism and self forgiveness will be needed to move on into a new American era.

It's just an idea. I haven't seen the movie yet and we'll see how I feel after the fact but I'm reading reviews by critics who are judging Bush and Americans like Hal 9000 does all of mankind and then some like Ebert looking at us like all we are is a bunch of evolved monkeys who are oblivious at heart and make dumb mistakes but can learn (and forget and then learn again!). I actually think the evolved monkey route is more humane myself. I advocate for the evolved monkey approach to W.

And I think you do too. But then you also seem to suggest he made a conscious decision not to think objectively. But then you also seem to suggest he's incapable of objective thinking which prevents him from being able to make any conscious decisions to begin with! Where do you stand on this issue, Jim? (I'm not intending that as an either-or question...)

Personally, I think he's just too desperately confident to endure the pain of analyzing his "wonderful world..." And I feel for him. Doesn't mean I'd ever vote for him. In fact, I think he needed a couple of shrinks more than a couple of terms as president but... that's why he's a 'fascinating' character... I see some similarities between him and Oliver Stone's Tony Montana...

Jim,

It's more than being obtuse, it's a matter of being intentionally incurious. Whether you attribute that to his faith, the safety net he always had under him as a child of privilege or just plain laziness, W. (and I'm talking about the character in Stone's film) just doesn't want to ask questions. It is easier to decide when you have fewer choices in front of you - you have to admit there's a certain depressing logic to that.

It's also tempting to think that W. (again, from the film) was treating the White House job like any other - if he didn't like it or screwed it up, dad could always help him get another one.

On a different note, I've heard much hay being made about the audacity of releasing a feature film about a president while he is still in office. Maybe this is unusual for a movie that comes indexed as an "official" fiction film, but Emile de Antonio pulled off the trick with 1971' "Millhouse: A White Comedy." It came packaged as a documentary but as you can tell from the intentionally misspelled title, it's got a lot more on its mind than a documentary expose about Nixon. It's a truly acidic and often hilarious (as in frightening I want to cry hilarious) portrait of a deeply neurotic man who happens to be inflicted his neuroses on the country and the world. The image today of a paranoid, insecure Nixon is a familiar one, but at the time it was pretty bold. I hope the release of "W" will provide incentive for someone to release "Millhouse" on DVD soon. It's about time for everything to be coming up Millhouse.

Erik, Stone was on Charlie Rose last night and raised some of your points. Brolin was with him, and he made an analogy to Timothy Treadwell of Grizzly Man, who had his bears to keep him off drinking.

Karlos, your comparison with Tony Montana is a great observation, it's helped to crystalize my still-evolving take on how Stone approached the movie and the character.

My "morning after" reaction to the movie can be found here:

http://thedancingimage.blogspot.com/2008/10/w.html

I suspect that it will continue to develop as I think about the movie, read other responses, and (probably) see it again.

I disagree, Jim, because this is the perfect time to make the movie. Bush's legacy - not its interpretation, but the actual facts and events by which it is made - have been established but not set into stone. To make this movie a few years ago would have been too soon, it would have been too colored by the fact that the events were unfolding midstream. To make this movie a few years from now, it would become merely a historical piece, interesting but not as fascinating as it is now, in 2008, when Bush is a lame-duck but still in office, when all of this is water not quite under the bridge yet. We're at the crossroads, and Stone's timing was impeccable.

CL: America = frog. Bush = scorpion. That's kind of the way I look at it. I think he's incurious not because he chooses to be but because he's never developed a fully adult moral conscience. That's who he is. He's not capable a broader outlook, or of comprehending that there might be one. If he could, his whole world would fall apart. So, he probably believes being incurious is a virtue because it makes him feel like more of a gut man, a Decider. Decisions weigh less heavily upon him precisely because he doesn't understand what it means to seriously consider them. (Your Nixon comparison is interesting. Nixon knew the difference between right and wrong, and was capable of understanding complexity, but his ego always came first. So, he was able to rationalize anything: "If the president does it, it's not illegal." I think Bush would take that statement at face value, untroubled by conscience as Nixon was.)

Bush (scorpion) persuaded America/us (frog) to let him ride on our back. Then he stung us and we both drowned. Because it is his nature to do what he does. He didn't know how to behave any differently -- and we knew that when we brought him aboard, but wouldn't/couldn't admit it to ourselves. (I think the river we were crossing together was that one in Egypt.) It's tragicomedy. But that makes him no less morally responsible for what he did or enabled. Same goes for those who supported him.

Right now an astonishing phenomenon is taking place: Many of John McCain's defenders are saying that he is not responsible for his decisions, including the choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate and the gutter campaign that even his biggest fans are calling "dishonorable." So, what does that say about their view of McCain? How can be be considered a man of integrity if he approves the same kinds of slimy campaign tactics (from the same PR companies!) that Bush employed to smear him in 2000? How can he be considered a reliable leader if he's unable to control his own campaign? How can he be considered honorable if he says he approves of the dishonorable (as he did openly on "Letterman" two nights ago)? It's amazing the hoops people will go through to rationalize their own, or somebody else's, words or actions. We're seeing cognitive dissonance galore, and it's pretty ugly. Which is the "real McCain"? Which is the "real Bush"? Can one aspect of their public personae be more real, or more fake, than another, when both have effects in the real world?

MovieMan, in your review you complained about the mock newscast meant to represent Chris Matthews commentary with Coulter. That was done because Matthews and/or MSNBC wouldn't give them the rights. In any case, that Stephen Colbert style joke got one of the bigger laughs in the audience I was with.

"He (scorpion) persuaded America/us (frog) to let him ride on our back.Then he stung us and we both drowned. Because it is his nature to do what he does. He didn't know how to behave any differently -- and we knew that when we brought him aboard, but wouldn't/couldn't admit it to ourselves... But that makes him no less morally responsible for what he did or enabled. Same goes for those who supported him."

^That's exactly what I've been trying to say here and also the answer to what I asked you thought. Thank you. Like I said, I 'misunderestimated' your ability to forgive he oblivious. I'm sorry!
And I'm loving The Crying Game reference...

The movie basically looks at "W." from that angle of his world falling apart if we took an objective look at his life. It argues, he didn't need reelection, he needed rehab. It also shows he is not an idiot, as I assumed he was. He's intelligent enough. His problem is that when his own interests are involved, the light switch goes off and he stops thinking, leaning instead on ideologies that give him excuses for anything wrong with him or his judgement. It's not that he overlooks his flaws, he simply can't help but be oblivious to them to avoid spiritual suicide. I've been awakened to the subconscious sadness he clothes with charisma so that even he can't notice. If there is a heaven, him and Tony Montana are gonna no doubt have a heart to heart about this personal problem they both possess.

Having now seen the movie, there is so much I'd like to talk about because it exceeded my expectations. Very worth the price of admission, it's one of my favorite films this year. But I've hogged this page so I'll throw out a few discussion points instead of babbling...

- Brolin deserves an Oscar nod, gets lost in the character, nothing condescending, vain or self preserving in his brave performance.
-Dubya is mediated through Stone and Brolin a bit, sure, but mostly you feel like you're seeing Dubya, not the Dubya we see in interviews but the Dubya we can believe exists behind closed doors.
- Stone wisely saves the one scene of Dubya's incompetence when speaking with the media for the very end, after we've come to know the man much better and see his responses not so much as hilarious and horrific but deeply, deeply sad...
- The very ending is an unintentional homage to "Blow-Up". I will say no more other than that if W. keeps squinting, he eventually sees the ball.
- The scenes with his cabinet are comedy of Bunuelian proportions; Stone takes a page out of "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie": as team Dubya realizes their disgrace, they respond by nibbling on pecan pie.
- It's worth watching just to see how team Dubya operates... or, shall we say, coexists.
- W. is not the pushover I imagined. He knows when he's being fooled. Except when he's fooling himself and that's what makes him susceptible to manipulation from Cheney and company.
- Dreyfuss enjoys 'doing The Cheney'. He's right on the money.
- Wright is solid as Powell. Powell, as a black man in a white majority, gets bullied. He conforms but only in action, not mind and spirit.
- Cheney and Powell's bickering is worth half the price of admission.
- Newton, despite harsh criticism that her Rice draws attention to herself. I think that's the point. As a black woman in an otherwise white male cabinet, she is forced into the role of cheerleader. She should resign but maybe she has her own burdens... pride in knowing a black woman is a member of America's political elite? Newton plays Rice as a woman constantly struggling with her identity, uncomfortable with what she has succumbed to yet as desperate to forge her way as Dubya is to forge is... Watch her facial expressions and uneasy voice. It's not just an impersonation. You can see and hear her inner turmoil.
- Of course, that's ALL she's going on, like all the cabinet members . They aren't fully dimensional dimensional portrayals. But they are slightly nuanced, at least, more so than many critics make them come off as.
And the movie is about W. Each character is really portrayed in relation to him.
- Banks is cast well as Laura, a woman who saw a broken but charismatic man and fell in love with his good, bad and ugly; no lover could ever alter Bush's mind but she did ease some of his pain.
- Cromwell is the real standout other than Brolin. He exudes a Bush Sr. presence and defines the character as a man focused on maintaining dignity, much like Bush Jr. in his own way...
- Bush Senior isn't played as a villain but as a man with his own flaws who was able to mature more than Dubya but by then it was too late.
- The father/son relationship, I felt, is complex because of how the demands of Senior's political career drained him of the time and energy he needed to deal with an out of control Dubya; he assumed it wouldn't matter in the end because Dubya would never be making crucial, world changing decisions like his brother Jeb. We can't help but agree his assumptions seemed safe at the time... (Never assume! It makes an ass out of you and me!)
- In the nightmare sequence (the fight in the oval office) we see them reveal their truest, worst feelings. Senior hates what Junior has done to the family legacy. Dubya regresses into acting like a child seeking his happy place...
- Both love each other regardless. Senior realizes this more over time. Junior is increasingly concerned with proving he is not his father. To prove himself to his father. And to prove himself to himself.

Overall, I think and feel the movie is an ideal meeting between director, actor and Bush. It's humanism is a change from the anger and cynicism Americans have been feeling, a chance for anybody to put the Dubya demons to rest. I myself feel comforted by it in ways I hadn't anticipated; now I can see Bush and his cabinet as human again. And that restores my faith in humanity. (Not to say it was gone, but going... going...) I can live with us having our frailties, but cruelty I choke on like Dubya does 'The Pretzel'.

And I'm confident this was the time to make it. MovieMan, you're right. Years ago, there wasn't enough perspective to make the movie. Years from now, there'd be less impact. But I would add that this is a movie that will always be relevant.

Karlos: Thanks for your well-considered thoughts. I tried to get to a showing of "W." today but ran out of time. You're getting at a key issue I feel Americans will need to face (or I do, anyway), and that has to do with forgiveness. Is it my place to "forgive" a president, given that i don't know what it's like to be in that position? I don't know. But I've suffered the damage, along with my country, of this person having run for president. Bush himself (citing Christian influences) has made statements along the lines of "Condemn the sin, not the sinner." I wonder what he thinks he means by that. Does, say, rape exist independently of the person who rapes? I don't see how that can be. (Actually, Bush has used it in reference to gay people, which to me is the same as saying it about, say, Jews. Or bald people. Where is the sin?)

If, in fact, someone does do harm, and we don't first hold the transgressor accountable for it, then what's to forgive? You can't make excuses for somebody's behavior and then claim to have forgiven them, or even understood them. First you must come to terms with the full extent of the behavior (whether or not intention comes into it). So, do I forgive W. for being weak? Well, no, because there's nothing to forgive. That's who he is, and that was well known by the time of the first campaign. Molly Ivins wrote about it for years. (I would find it harder to forgive myself if I had voted for W. Now I have to try to forgive myself for my naivete in thinking he was probably a decent fellow who wouldn't be able to do much harm in his first term because he didn't have an electoral mandate and wouldn't dare pretend that he did.)

Gerald Ford argued that his pardon of Nixon was necessary for "national healing" to take place. Al Gore said something similar about the contested 2000 presidential election. I'm not sure either of them were right. Maybe we needed to work those things all the way through for real healing to take place. Do I forgive Bill Clinton for recklessly sabotaging his own presidency (and ideals I believe in) over a pathetic sexual affair with an intern? That's tough -- but I'm not going to rationalize what he did. Self-control and self-awareness are essential to a person's character. But I want to understand (as much as possible) what motivated these people, and what they did as a result. The understanding (or at least the attempt to understand) has to come first.

Under international law, George W. Bush is most likely a war criminal. The considerable evidence is already in the public record (for more documentation, see the upcoming Frontline doc, "Torturing Democracy"), and I believe he should be tried and, if convicted, not allowed to leave the US (more or less like Henry Kissinger is now) at the very least. Would such a verdict -- or Bush's admission of culpability -- help me to forgive what he's done? It would probably do more than anything to bring about (international) healing, but it's no more likely to happen than a full Nixon confession would have been. So, through understanding can you forgive someone who doesn't believe they require forgiveness? That's a really, really tough problem that I expect my conscience to grapple with for a long time. (Because I apply the same questions to myself every day. No wonder I suffer from depression! I'm sure I'm guilty of things I don't even recall -- like that great scene between Gena Rowlands and Sandy Dennis at Chumley's in Woody Allen's "Another Woman.")

To use the Ultimate Example: Not even Hitler can be explained as Just a Monster. He seems to have believed that what he was doing was right and necessary, as extraordinary as that may be. And he had a lot of cooperation from millions of people. Does that lessen his culpability? Does it make it easier to "forgive" (if that is necessary or desirable)? I don't think so.

There is some truth to the idea that judging Presidents is different from judging anyone else. I doubt there has ever been one--and I mean ever--who didn't cause, at least, hundreds of deaths through errors and/or sins of both omission and comission. And yet that's also why forgiveness can't be part of the equation. Once someone has the audacity to take that oath--they volunteer, they're not drafted--they must realize that they are likely to burn for eternity (if they believe in such things) even as they take the sins of America on themselves (and I bet even the non-believers have such Messianic fantasies). If we could forgive Bush the man, without forgiving Bush the President, I might hop on board, I'm not a vengeful type. But it's too important that Bush the President be raked over the coals of history so that we don't keep getting more Bush's (I'm not saying I'm optimistic about this idea). And forgiveness ain't the way to do that. Sorry.

For all that, I think the pardon of Nixon is a different matter. Nobody forgave him or his actions. The idea, as I understand it now, was simply that trying him in a court of law was not really productive for the country. I think I agree with that. Maybe. Sort of.

I suppose a criticism of going soft on Bush, or being sentimental about him could be leveled on the film. But then I'm not sure how much of it is merely from showing things ironically from his point of view. This was clear from the audience reactions: there's a scene where he visits and speaks with wounded servicemen at Walter Reed and tries to comfort a grievously injured one by giving him an "Operation Iraqi Freedom" T-shirt and draping it over his immobile body. I heard crying from someone in the audience while another person mutter "what bullshit". Another scene where he storms out of an unsuccessful press conference thrusting his arms in angry frustration like Jack Nicholson in The Shining would have people laughing if it was silent, but the music says something else. Is that the way he feels about himself?

But the best case in point of the use of music for point of view is the crucial scene for Dick Cheney (Richard Dreyfuss) where he stands in front of a map of the world an gives a speech laying out the blueprint for an American empire. The music during his speech isn't eerie or intense, but it's a soft piano piece that sounds a little wistful, even inspiring.

So I wonder if the movie isn't in the vein of The Godfather films, showing us how they see themselves.

Btw, the movie might be a good one for an Opening Shot post, especially since it ties in with the last shot.

Dan, thanks for the B/G (pretty much what I suspected). The spoof may be effective riposte to Matthews, but undercuts the movie's strength (being the way it hews closely to the public record). Actually, I think Colbert does a closer and better skewering than the media of Stone.

Just a quick comment about the photo you posted of Brolin: that comes from an odd dream sequence in the movie, so I'm not sure it's the best representation of Brolin's portrayal of the character. I don't think it was a false performance.

I hope Brolin won't be forgotten for awards just because of the average reception of the film. His performance here, hopefully backed up by his role in Milk ought to follow up on his '07 success and get him nominated for one or both of them.

Jim, Bush can really only mean one of two things when he says "condemn the sin, not the sinner" with regards to gay people. First, he could be making a distinction between macro and micro. In other words, he's saying that while in the macro(the world of culture, spirituality, and moral codes) I don't agree with the whole gay thing, in the micro(everyday dealings with people)there's no reason why we can't all be civil and get along, despite our macro differences. However, realistically, I suspect that what Bush meant by that is that men judge actions, God judges souls. This interpretation isn't half bad, I suppose, when applied to something like rape. For Bush to use this line with regards to gay people is rather odious to me. Also, it should be noted that you kinda ratcheted up the ante of the whole argument when you mentioned rape. Just as our legal system recognizes gradations of guilt and blame, western religion recognizes gradations of sin. Otherwise, man would be more just than God, at least according to those that think along such lines. Interesting side note -- it's my understanding that the real meaning of the word "sin" is sorta lost on western religion. The word's ancient Greek translation is "to miss the mark", like an archer might. So to sin is to miss the mark, to miss the point. But to miss the point of what? Well, to miss the point of human existence it would seem. And so when one misses the point of human existence, by default one sins. On these grounds, I denounce Bush's denouncement of gay people. I think they miss the mark.

brad: Thanks for your very thoughtful contributions. I can only respond with my own experience when I was attending a Methodist (not Southern Methodist, like Bush) church when I was about 14 or 15. I had only recently figured out what "gay" meant (as I've mentioned previously, in the early '70s in my part of Seattle the popular term of abuse was not "fag" but "woman"). I didn't realize then that there was nothing in the New Testament that condemned homosexuality, and that the prohibitions in the Old Testament were about "wasting seed" (i.e., the same as condemnations of masturbation), but I couldn't figure out why consensual sexual activity of any kind should be considered morally "wrong." I still don't understand how any morally developed person could find love, or consensual sex, between adults to be anything one would feel entitled to condemn. My Southern/Midwestern relatives used religion to justify their horror of miscegenation, too. And, even at age 12, I thought they were mean and crazy for the way they talked about "nigras" and anyone who wasn't white, as a potential source of "pollution" for their race. Little did they know about their own history!

In addition to what Clark said, none of the TV spots give a proper tone of the movie either. Only the first theatrical trailer "What a Wonderful World" truly reflects the tone of the film. The second theatrical trailer (that was before Burn After Reading) was fantastic, one of the best trailers I've ever seen, but it's not like the movie. You remember the trailer for NCFOM where it cuts to black as Chigurh says "Call it...friendo"? The W. trailer uses the same effect "I've heard the call...and I believe that God wants me to run for President."
I'm describing it because for some unknown reason this trailer hasn't been released online.

It's been interesting talking to a few friends that have see the movie. If anything my more liberal ones complain about the factual accuracy more than the more conservative ones. They didn't like that it almost makes you feel sorry for him at the end. They wondered why it didn't get into more of the heinous allegations about him, his elite family history, or why it didn't try to expose "the real Bush" behind closed doors. Other people I talked to just had high praise for Brolin's performance. Like i said earlier, I'm not sure how much of the film is deliberately subjective and ironic, not meant to be taken literally.

Which brings me to this good idea on Slate: A debate between Stone, Bob Woodward, Ron Suskind, and your previously mentioned Jacob Weisberg.
Suskind has the first entry, but be warned if you haven't seen the movie there looks to be spoilers:

http://www.slate.com/id/2202667/entry/0/