Thursday, March 27, 2008

A George W. Bush Movie in Theaters in 2008?

Oliver Stone's planned biopic of George W. Bush is moving forward at lightning speed. Word is it will be "available for distribution" before the November elections, and will definitely be released before Bush goes out of office, so this one's going to happen quick. Yesterday Stone's choice for the role of Laura Bush was announced, and today the actors who will play George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush were announced.

First, here's W:

A choice Bush ought to be flattered by, but not much in common physically. It'll be interesting to see whether Brolin opts to do an immersive, quasi-Method approach to the role a la Anthony Hopkins' portrayal of Nixon, or more of a version of Bush that will be recognizable enough for audiences to suspend disbelief -- kinda like Travolta playing a Clinton-like character in "Primary Colors." That inevitable first photograph of Brolin in his W getup is going to be very telling on this score.

Now, the long-suffering Laura:

If it were anyone but Laura Bush, I might wonder whether Elizabeth Banks had enough range to portray a living person, but I don't think there's a whole lot going on beneath the surface with Laura Bush, so hiring a Meryl Streep-quality actress to take on the role doesn't seem necessary. Banks should do fine.

And no Bush family would be complete without its matriarch. Here's Barb:

Ellen Burstyn is, for my money, the best actress of her generation. Her performance in "Requiem for a Dream" is all heartbreaking and tragic and scary and all that stuff that makes acting good. The only thing I don't think she can do as an actress is a southern accent (for evidence, please review "Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood." On second though, don't do that.) This is great casting. Almost as good as...

Stone's choice for Bush the Elder:

James Cromwell's played a version of H.W. Bush in "The Sum of all Fears" (and he also happens to bear a distinct physical resemblance to the guy), and he's accustomed to playing cranky patriarchs, so this is a natural choice. I'm sure he'll be great.

Here's an excerpt from an interview Stone gave to Variety about the movie, which actually does shed light on some of the questions I asked above:

"It's a behind-the-scenes approach, similar to 'Nixon,' to give a sense of what it's like to be in his skin," Stone told Daily Variety. "But if 'Nixon' was a symphony, this is more like a chamber piece, and not as dark in tone. People have turned my political ideas into a cliche, but that is superficial. 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."

Stone declined to give his personal opinion of the president.

"I can't give you that, because the filmmaker has to hide in the work," Stone said. "Here, I'm the referee, and I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It's like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I'll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors."
Sounds like Stone understands something about what makes Bush's story interesting, but "Frank Capra territory" seems way too whimsical a way to describe a film about a guy's rise from coddled trust-fund manchild to president and war criminal; I know Stone's trying to be careful not to get the wingnuts telling people to avoid the movie before he's even shot a foot of film, but seriously. Frank Capra?

Obviously I'm hoping the film (tentatively titled "W") is closer in quality to "Nixon" than "Alexander," but I think it's going to make big money at the box office no matter what. As much as the guy repulses about 3/4 of the country, I think most Americans, whether they care to admit it or not, find him fascinating. Repugnant, yes, but fascinating.


Anonymous said...

An objective perspective on W!!!!


Personally, I think Stone should make it within the gangster genre.

Did you read the news that the Pentagon recently discovered that Saddam never went after his father - this was misinformation. Even Bush is living on misinformation or he is just a brainless sock puppet.

So, let me get this straight -

1) We started a war based on a lie. We've murdered over 90K to 1M Iraqi's (depending on your study) for what???? Oil, geopolitical strategic interests?

The Lies:

1) Saddam was in cahoots with Al Queada.

2) Saddam planned to kill Bushy Wushy's fascist father.

3) Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction.

We know:

1) From Downing Street Memo that US was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11!

2) That Cheney, Wolfowitz and co formed a parallel special operations plan office in the State Dept that "manufactured" evidence against the Iraqi government - also going against the CIA. The CIA fought back and got Rumsfeld fired. Don't forget it culminated into Powell making himself look like an ass in front of the UN as he spewed lies dished to him as "bad intelligence".

Moreover, Bush did not obtain the approval of Congress to go to War.

So, this war is technically illegal and breaks International law - something the Bush Admin and lame Conservatives balk at...They loathe International law - something the US was instrumental in putting together after WW2.

Read and learn...

What is Bush's reason for attacking a sovereign nation?

1) Was it because we didn't like Saddamn personally? He was a nasty dictator that the US/Europe placed in the country and armed against Islamisists and Communists.

2) Was it because he talked a ton of smack against the Jews?

The main rationale for the invasion offered by U.S. President George W. Bush and coalition supporters was the allegation that Iraq possessed and was actively developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in violation of a 1991 agreement.[40][41] U.S. officials argued that Iraq posed an imminent, urgent, and immediate threat to the United States, its people, allies, and interests.

The Financial cost of this war has been over 900 billion dollars thus far and has created more Anti-American sentiment since the Vietnam war. Not to mention is a breeding ground for new Islamic crazies who now want to blow us up more than ever.

Of course, W wants to fight them over there, so they don't come here. The problem is - there was nobody to really fight in the first place, the US supports and has propt us a zillion dictators over the last 150 years. Why is Saddam so special?

Thanks to Bush, the Shiites have taken over Iraq and plan to unify relations with Iran - forming a consolidated empire for Iran - thus the reason the US is saber rattling for another war with the Persians.

Oh me oh my - what a loser. Why is Oliver Stone making a "balanced" film about this lunatic, this hologram imbecile, this piece of merde who is nothing but a failure - a manifestation and representation of a ruling class that is running scared - victims of a system of free enterprise that has slipped out of their control.


Anonymous said...

Bush rocks! I can't wait to check out this movie.

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

Honestly, with so many facts out there, blatant facts - I can't see how people like 'anonymous' can remain convinced that Bush and cohorts are fantastic. Unless he is being facetious, sarcastic, a moron or is a complete supporter of the neo-con cause. If so - I truly feel sorry for you.


Anonymous said...

everyone gives bush a bad rap, but he's probably one of the best presidents thiscountry has ever seen.

dirtylikemine said...

Brolin's an unusual choice, but not a bad one, in my opinion. I think he's got the chops for it, even if he is a little young.

Elizabeth Banks is extremely hot. I always thought she stood out in her small role in 40 Year Old Virgin. I like to think about her in the bathtub.

I want to know who's playing "Hot Karl" Rove. I'm also waiting to hear what part Frank Whaley is going to play, as he frequently seems to turn up in Stone's movies. I'm hoping he gets to be Wolfowitz, that would be a nice fit for him.

Papa's still pissed about Sore/Loserman '00, that's what this is all about. LOL!

Anonymous said...

Dirtylikemike- is that you John? Whassup dude!! Are you in LA?

BTW: I never voted for Al Gore in 2000 dude. I was a NADER supporter.

I could care less about Dems and Repukes.

And please tell me "anonymous" why W is the best president ever? I'm would love to hear this one.

- Paul Papadeas

Anonymous said...

you ask me to validate bush but you vote for nader? forget it would be a waste of my intelligence.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - you have no intelligence.

DBD said...

Making a Bush movie? That's nothing. Don't get me wrong, I like Bush, it's just that the news of this movie pales in comparison to the REMAKE OF 90210!!!

I'm on pin and fucking needles. No shit.

Anonymous said...

Republicans = take all the racist, paranoid, fearful and superstitious, sexually repressed, petty nationalist, insecure, authoritarian, aristocrats, products of inherited wealth, anarcho-capitalist, violent thugs and you have one GRAND OLD PARTY! More importantly at the heart of their philosophy is a complete mysanthropy, a distrust and disgust with all of humanity. They are variations of Daniel Plainview and the Reverand - which makes me wonder if this is what PT Anderson intended to show in THERE WILL BE BLOOD. The inherent character of these people.

Democrats = also have an internal distrust of people and their "animal" natures, but not as extreme as the Republican ilk. They believe that people should have some avenue to make free choices, but all within the capitalist system and one where surveillance and security are there for one's own self and community protection. They believe that a ruling, intelllectual elite, specialists in their field should make most of the important decisions for the average joe - on their behalf through representative mechanisms. Moreover, they believe they can play the referee/umpire of the capitalist system - able to control its worst excesses using the classically liberal checks and balances of our government apparatus. Democrats have replaced the worst qualities brought out by Republicans with alternative euphemysims/movements rooted in past identity politics of the cultural revolution of the late 60's(like African-American studies, Queer theory and Gay rights, Woman's Studies, Environmental movement, Peace movement, Anti-Nuclear movement) - all of which are highly important and need support but are to this day completely disconnected from an united internalionalist cause which is to abolish the wage relation and to break property rights and capitalist exploitation in the world.

We have 1871, 1917, 1968 and are waiting for the next watershed moment in history...

Democrats stand for nothing more than improving the capitalist system and are closet nationalists who hide it behind a cover of bohemian cosmopolitanism.

Think of this as the continued war between the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians.

So, my vote for NADER (only a TRUE Corporate reformer himself) at the time was self-justified as I believed the Green Party offered something different in terms of our bankrupt representative political system.


Anonymous said...

yes the green party offered something different: lunacy. nader was an idiot. if you cant see how bush is the greatest pres that ever lived then youre not paying attention, "papa". what kind of idiot calls himself papa? oh thats right a nader voting one.

DBD said...

Papa- Anonymous does make a good point. Bush is a pretty wonderful president. He faces difficult times with poise and quick decisive actions.

We should count our blessings that he is in office. God knows where we'd be without him.

I'm glad that Americans came together twice and elected this guy. It makes me sleep easier knowing he's in the White House.

Gretchen said...

Look dipshit. "Papa" may just be an abbreviation for something. Like, perhaps, a guy's LAST NAME, retard.

Anonymous said...

I think I've been Heath'd!

Anonymous said...

dont get angry at me I didnt start this. that ass papa did.

bush is could quite possible be the bestpresident ever and the green party is for stupid silly hippies.

maybe papa is a hippie because he is so defensive. i dont care if papa is his last name hes still an idiot. thegreen party is a loser party.

blankfist said...

dead blog