Roundtable Review: W.

<i>MoJo</i> staffers riff on <i>W.</i>, Oliver Stone’s biopic of George W. Bush, starring Josh Brolin.

Photo: Courtesy of Lionsgate Films.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Director Oliver Stone has already profiled John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. Perhaps it was only a matter of time before he also tackled George W. Bush’s controversial presidency. In the reality-based biopic W., Stone tracks Bush from his drunken days in Texas to cabinet meetings in the White House. Josh Brolin, Bush’s alter ego under Stone’s direction, dominates the film in scenes that are plausible and funny, if not strictly factual. Some key moments are pure speculation, like Stone’s imagination of the closed-door meeting that decided Iraq’s fate. Others are joyful recreations of public gaffes, like awkward press conferences whose gravity Bush “misunderestimated.” In both personal and political relationships, Stone’s W. is a confused, frustrated man, whose insatiable hunger for his father’s approval drives him to make overly aggressive, emotion-based decisions. Bush the son, Stone suggests, has always wanted to escape his black sheep standing in a very white, aristocratic flock. No matter, it will never be enough. He can’t be Jeb. He can’t be Reagan. He can only ever be W.

Four MoJo staffers previewed W. this week and then discussed it via Gchat. W. opens nationwide this weekend.

Jen: Okay, let’s get started. First impressions?

Elizabeth: Brolin was really good, but some of the characters (Condi) were more like caricatures.

Jesse: It left me thinking about the Bush family dynamics. You have to wonder what HW thinks of W’s effect on the Bush family name.

Elizabeth: I actually came away with a whole lot of respect for Poppy, and dare I say some understanding of Barbara, who until now I just thought of as a racist bag.

Jen: I liked Poppy too. And the Connecticut / Texas divide was emphasized, but I’d think it would color their interactions with each other.

Daniel: Did any parts of the movie strike you as wildly inaccurate?

Elizabeth: I wondered about the torture/lettuce lunch between Dub and Vice. There’s no way we know that’s how it went down.

Jen: Probably the way Bush says “I’m the decider” every 10 minutes. Also we have no way of knowing he had a panic attack alone in the woods. Or obviously his private conversations with Laura. And is his “favorite play” really “Cats?”

Elizabeth: I felt sort of hit over the head with obvious stuff, like the hazing/torture parallel. Stone didn’t want to leave the viewer to catch on to the ironies themselves, I guess.

Jen: Yeah, I also felt like Stone did a lot of winky stuff with the viewer. It was like he had to make sure people knew how clever he was being.

Elizabeth: Did anyone feel like they learned something new? I didn’t know (and I’m not sure I wanted to know) that Laura calls him Geo.

Jesse: I was pleasantly surprised they spent so much time on Bush’s failed reading initiatives as governor of Texas. (Go Randy Best!)

Jesse: I was surprised that stone wasn’t more cynical about Bush’s born-againness. Is it undisputed that Bush is really, truly a believer?

Jen: If he can believe there were WMDs in Iraq, why not that Jesus wanted him to be president? If nothing else, the movie demonstrated Bush’s ability to suspend reality indefinitely.

Jesse: And that’s the bottom line, really.

Elizabeth: It wasn’t a short movie, but as it ended I realized I was disappointed not to see anything re the 2000 election, 9/11 at the elementary school, or the Katrina response played out.

Jen: Yes, no Katrina! But I guess you have to edit when you have so many good (awful?) moments to choose from. I could easily see this as a Chicago-style musical, starring Mark Wahlberg as Bush and Parker Posey as Laura.

Daniel: I could totally see Posey delivering the “John Quincy Adams” line.

Elizabeth: Back to Katrina for a hot sec. That was such a f-up, and less trodden than the “My Pet Goat” disaster on 9/11 that Fahrenheit 9/11 illustrated. I guess giving us Katrina would be more of an advance on the story. WMDs and yellowcake to me feels like old news, especially when you’re timing your release two weeks before a presidential election.

Jesse: But it [the movie] didn’t really look at Bush’s second term at all, did it?

Elizabeth: No, it didn’t, which to me felt incomplete. My last thought? It was alright, but it certainly wasn’t better than “Cats.”

Jen: I also wish it would have taken us right up to the present. And yes, “Cats” might be better.

Jesse: You took the words right off my fingertips. That [When Laura gets Bush tickets to “Cats” to cheer him up] was the best moment in the movie, for me personally.

Elizabeth: He’ll [Bush] give up sweets for the troops but not “Cats?” What a tool.

Jen: Thanks, all, for Gchatting about W. Next time we’ll go see “Cats” instead, I promise.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate