Stone says no malice intended in "W.", quoted from yahoo.news

AllardChardon

Literotica Guru
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Posts
4,797
Stone says no malice intended in "W."
By Jill Serjeant

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Oliver Stone's film portrait of President George W. Bush was always going to be controversial given the director's liberal leanings.

So Stone decided to open "W." in U.S. theaters less than three weeks before Americans select their next president -- a calculated move aimed at prodding voters to think about the past eight years and the future.

The movie is part drama, part satire, yet the director of "JFK" and "Nixon" argues it is no hatchet job on Bush -- and so far, critics agree. The final verdict awaits the October 17 debut for one of this fall's most widely anticipated films.

"Whoever wins this election, Bush's impact has changed the world," Stone told Reuters. "This man has left us with three wars -- in Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror -- and the legacy of the pre-emptive strike.

"These are legacies that will haunt his successor for years. It's good for people, before the election, to think about who they elected eight years ago and about where we are as a country right now," the three-time Oscar winner said.

With Josh Brolin in the title role, "W." is a rare movie about a sitting U.S. president, made by a director whose past films have been criticized for mixing fact and fiction.

Yet Stone says audiences will not find the partisan portrait his critics might expect from the director of Vietnam war film "Platoon" and Cuban documentary "Looking for Fidel."

"It was not our intention to bring malice or judgment on George W. Bush and his administration. He and his administration clearly speak for themselves," Stone said.

"EVEN-HANDED"

Among early reviews, show business paper Daily Variety says the movie is a "clear and plausible take on (Bush's) psychological makeup, and, considering Stone's reputation and Bush's vast unpopularity, a relatively even-handed, restrained treatment of recent politics."

"W." traces Bush's transformation from a privileged, hard-drinking frat boy to religious convert; his rise from Texas governor to U.S. president; and to his decisions in the weeks ahead of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Based on books written by former White House insiders, the filmmakers say "W." is intended to ask questions about "a life misunderestimated" -- to borrow a famous "Bushism."

Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino said the White House had "much more important things to do than comment on this ridiculous movie." Yet, Stone said he and screenwriter Stanley Weiser had "parked their politics at the door."

"The movie tries to understand Bush and make him a human being," Stone said. "I have tried to be fair and balanced. I have tried not to take sides."

Stone makes Bush's relationship with his father, former President George H.W. Bush, the dramatic centerpiece of "W."

The film highlights Bush's youth as the "black sheep" of the Bush dynasty and it reconstructs his meetings with political and military advisers before the 2003 Iraq invasion. The Iraq issue provides much of the movie's satire. Bush likens new rules on torture in "Guantanamero" to his college fraternity initiation.

Brolin, who captures the swagger and charm of Bush, said he had initial doubts about taking on the role but on reading the script, he was moved and saddened. He decided it was "the greatest challenge an actor can ever have."

"Bush is an exaggerated personality ... We tried to create a drama with the reality of those exaggerations but I don't think it is bufoonery," Brolin said.

(Editing by Bob Tourtellotte and Bill Trott.)


For the Oliver Stone fans like me,
Allard
 
Well that sounds like a nice spin nice and all, but it is clearly buffoonery from the commercials I've seen.
 
No matter how even handed it is it's going to start some people foaming.

Luckily I have them all on ignore. :D
 
Let me preface this by saying I think GWB is a complete idiot who should never had been elected once, much less twice.

That said, Stone's movie should be posponed until after the election. When I read things like:

"Among early reviews, show business paper Daily Variety says the movie is a "clear and plausible take on (Bush's) psychological makeup, and, considering Stone's reputation and Bush's vast unpopularity, a relatively even-handed, restrained treatment of recent politics."

I see a very "liberal/left wing" publication spinning a hatchet job. I could care less if the chop the living shit out of GW - he deserves it - but, I am offended by Stone attempting to influence the election with his movie and overshadowing consideration of the policies and platform of each candidate. It's just more hate mongering and god knows we have enough of that!


P.S. Vote NO on California Prop 8
 
Let me preface this by saying I think GWB is a complete idiot who should never had been elected once, much less twice.

That said, Stone's movie should be posponed until after the election. When I read things like:

"Among early reviews, show business paper Daily Variety says the movie is a "clear and plausible take on (Bush's) psychological makeup, and, considering Stone's reputation and Bush's vast unpopularity, a relatively even-handed, restrained treatment of recent politics."

I see a very "liberal/left wing" publication spinning a hatchet job. I could care less if the chop the living shit out of GW - he deserves it - but, I am offended by Stone attempting to influence the election with his movie and overshadowing consideration of the policies and platform of each candidate. It's just more hate mongering and god knows we have enough of that!


P.S. Vote NO on California Prop 8
I think he's pointing out exactly the platform and policies of the Bush admin, and of George W. Mccain. I think that's the point. Not the platform they've claimed, but the platform they've operated from. The fact that they have lied, bamboozled and cheated the american public into disaster.

And after the election is too late.
 
STELLA

Bush and McCain hate each other. So get real.

McCain has his head up his ass for entirely different reasons.
 
I think he's pointing out exactly the platform and policies of the Bush admin, and of George W. Mccain. I think that's the point. Not the platform they've claimed, but the platform they've operated from. The fact that they have lied, bamboozled and cheated the american public into disaster.

And after the election is too late.

I can not & will not defend GWB and his fellow jackasses and what he has done IS indiciative of what I'd expect from McBush-lite. (I like George W. McCain BTW), but this is DRAMA and SATIRE All it does is demean the office of the President of the United States even further. ( I don't want Obama to have to step down into his new job.)

It's a multimillion dollar Swift Boat ad. I HATED it when they did it and I don't like it any better when my chosen side does it! Poo flinging vs. poo flinging is STILL wrong. I want issues vs. issues.
 
I agree with both sides. It is very Hollywood to release a political film BEFORE the election, like Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 before the last election, little good it did to stop the Bush machine. And I agree that after the election it is TOO LATE to make an impact and that is what Stone is all about, IMPACT.

I planned on voting No on Prop 8 from the moment I heard of its existence. It is truly amazing to me that there are still so many homophobes in Calipornia.
 
I can not & will not defend GWB and his fellow jackasses and what he has done IS indiciative of what I'd expect from McBush-lite. (I like George W. McCain BTW), but this is DRAMA and SATIRE All it does is demean the office of the President of the United States even further. ( I don't want Obama to have to step down into his new job.)

It's a multimillion dollar Swift Boat ad. I HATED it when they did it and I don't like it any better when my chosen side does it! Poo flinging vs. poo flinging is STILL wrong. I want issues vs. issues.
No, it portrays the man who has already demeaned the office. It points to the poo that is pile all around the man, and asks its viewers; "Are you going to duck, or not?"

The difference between swift-boating and satire-- learn it. :kiss:
 
Onr thing I have to say-- I hope Stone is using a different set of billboards in the red states. The ones here in CA are very satirical.

I'm hoping he has an alternate shot of the man looking off into a heroic sunset, or something, encourage the people to see it that need to see it.
 
To say the movie should not be released until after the election is to say that no books on politics should be released before the election, and there should be no political articles in the media, and Tina Fey should be banned from SNL...

It's easier to make an informed decision when the pool of information is greater. Part of the problem with the USA electorate is their incredible level of ignorance. 30% of voters in some states think OB is a muslim. Over 50% thought Saddam was behind 9/11. This movie is an attempt to add information to the discussion, instead of letting the discussion spiral into irrelevance because of lies and innuendo.
 
To say the movie should not be released until after the election is to say that no books on politics should be released before the election, and there should be no political articles in the media, and Tina Fey should be banned from SNL...

It's easier to make an informed decision when the pool of information is greater. Part of the problem with the USA electorate is their incredible level of ignorance. 30% of voters in some states think OB is a muslim. Over 50% thought Saddam was behind 9/11. This movie is an attempt to add information to the discussion, instead of letting the discussion spiral into irrelevance because of lies and innuendo.

No. This movie is an attempt to sell tickets. Plain and simple.
 
Whatda mean? They have the mega-super-star James Brolin in the lead! :D
that's one (if you ask his agent,) out of five...:rolleyes:

but really, if Stone wanted to sell tickets pure and simple, he would have made "Platoon II" or "Snakes on A Shuttle" or almost anything else besides this movie.
 
No. This movie is an attempt to sell tickets. Plain and simple.

Well of course it is... and the time they are going to be able to sell the most tickets is before the election.

That is always a major goal. That they have secondary goals that are political is almost as undeniable as the profit motive though, don't ya think?
 
I think if you want to make a film about how bad Bush is, all you have to do is clip together some of his public statements, unedited.

But seriously, haven't they already done a movie about him? "Jackass", I think its was called..?
 
Well, I plan on spending some of the little money we have on seeing this movie BEFORE the election, not that it will change my vote. I was an anti-Bushite from the beginning, I hate to brag...
 
Why isn't anyone talking about "American Carol", the right-wing send up of Michael Moore that's out now? Is anyone going to see that?

Personally, I'm reserving judgment on "W" till I see it, and I'm dying to see it. Love him or hate him, I find Bush's presidency to be an astonishing occurrence and very likely the event that permanently and irreversibly damaged America's place in the world. I think it needs to be documented in as much detail as possible, whether it be fact or fantasy.
 
Someone with integrity must chronicle the events of the worst presidency the United States has ever endured. At the least, Bush will be remembered badly, very badly, and I can honestly say I never voted for him or his dad.
 
"Bush and his administration clearly speak for themselves" as Stone pointed out.

Fans of GWB attribute malice even to direct quotes, unspun.

Of course it's Oliver Stone, so there will be plenty of spin; that goes without saying. And so what? Being targeted for some spiteful entertainment is the only accountability Bush will ever face. A pathetically small price to pay for all the blood on his hands.
 
Last edited:
Someone with integrity must chronicle the events of the worst presidency the United States has ever endured. At the least, Bush will be remembered badly, very badly, and I can honestly say I never voted for him or his dad.
I think Paul Krugman's columns in tThe New York Times has done an excellent job of that.
 
Back
Top