W. (Oliver Stone, 2008)

Message

flyonthewall2983 · #151 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:59 pm

I'm sure there's no harm in portraying him as both. It's not exactly an impossible feat to be those two things at the same time.

#152 Post by **Jeff** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:09 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:I'm sure there's no harm in portraying him as both. It's not exactly an impossible feat to be those two things at the same time.

Not at all. The fact that he embodies those two traits so unabashedly is what has made his presidency such a clusterfuck. Now if someone could just make a venn diagram with W at the intersection of stupidity and arrogance...

Antoine Doinel · #153 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:29 pm

I guess I just feel the stupidity of his presidency is so well documented as to be redundant (especially for a film that will be released while he's still in office). I think really pinpointing his arrogance will make the film have the dramatic effect I think Stone is going for rather than being a character riff which I fear the final product will be.

Fletch F. Fletch · #154 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:41 am

Behind the scenes footage.

Interesting, even though Brolin doesn't look at all like W., he sounds uncannily like him.

#155 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:13 pm

Martin Landau looked nothing at all like Bela Lugosi in Ed Wood, and I don't for a moment think anyone coming out of that movie was bothered.

The real problem is that W. doesn't have enough necessary distance from the subject to be useful.

flyonthewall2983 · #156 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:33 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:The real problem is that W. doesn't have enough necessary distance from the subject to be useful.

Forgive me for being a little confused, but what does that mean exactly?

Antoine Doinel · #157 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 7:36 pm

New billboard ad.

#158 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:24 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Mr_sausage wrote:The real problem is that W. doesn't have enough necessary distance from the subject to be useful.
Forgive me for being a little confused, but what does that mean exactly?

What good is observation when you're too close to the subject to see it properly? Critical observation needs critical distance, and the necessary distance in the case of assessing personages is time.

flyonthewall2983 · #159 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:59 pm

What about All The President's Men or The Insider? The time between the events and the release of both of these films were far shorter than W's term in office.

Tom Hagen · #160 Post by **Tom Hagen** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 9:57 pm

I'm confused; All The President's Men came out during Watergate, and The Insider came out in the midst of the Wygant/60 Minutes controversy? As much as we would all like to pretend otherwise, the Bush presidency is still very much happening right now.

BTW, the Google Ad with McCain and Lieberman at the bottom of the page is enough to make me sick.

flyonthewall2983 · #161 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:06 pm

Well, yeah. I used those two examples to try and prove sausage's argument wrong that time would be necessary to paint the right picture.

#162 Post by **Mr Sausage** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 10:41 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Well, yeah. I used those two examples to try and prove sausage's argument wrong that time would be necessary to paint the right picture.

Right picture of what? My argument is about "the case of assessing personages." The Insider and All the President's Men dramatize journalism, the steps that resulted in certain facts being obtained/exposed. They are not an historical assessment of a character and his impact on his times. One would hope the distinction is obvious.

flyonthewall2983 · #163 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:00 pm

You got me there.

Svevan · #164 Post by **Svevan** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:05 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Well, yeah. I used those two examples to try and prove sausage's argument wrong that time would be necessary to paint the right picture.

All the President's Men came out three years after the Watergate scandal (two years after Nixon's resignation), and The Insider came out four years after the events it portrayed. Not sure, but I think Tom was trying to say the same thing through sarcasm.

tryavna · #165 Post by **tryavna** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:59 pm

Mr_sausage wrote:
flyonthewall2983 wrote:Well, yeah. I used those two examples to try and prove sausage's argument wrong that time would be necessary to paint the right picture.
Right picture of what? My argument is about "the case of assessing personages." The Insider and All the President's Men dramatize journalism, the steps that resulted in certain facts being obtained/exposed. They are not an historical assessment of a character and his impact on his times. One would hope the distinction is obvious.

Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me that 1942's The Devil With Hitler is not a reliable or accurate portrait of the Nazi leader?

#166 Post by **swo17** » Thu Aug 21, 2008 5:03 pm

tryavna wrote:Wait a minute! Are you trying to tell me that 1942's The Devil With Hitler is not a reliable or accurate portrait of the Nazi leader?

To say nothing of To Be or Not to Be (1942) or The Great Dictator (1940).

These films worked because they turned a serious despot into a buffoon.

W would work best if it portrayed George Bush as a cogent, courageous leader who brought his nation to great triumph.

tavernier · #167 Post by **tavernier** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 7:42 am

That movie was already made.

Tom Hagen · #168 Post by **Tom Hagen** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:48 pm

tavernier wrote:That movie was already made.

I was just going to post that!

Frank Rich points out some hilarious details about DC 9/11 in his book.

#169 Post by **swo17** » Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:21 pm

Seriously though, I think the best way to approach this would be to portray Bush throughout his entire presidency as he likely is in his own mind--successful at the things he deems important--and to only hint at the big screw-ups that rush first to most of our minds (i.e. the war, Katrina). I'm thinking of something along the lines of the 5th season of The Wire, which subtly attacked the media by showing them hard at work on everything but the corruption in the police force and the big political scandals reaching up to the highest levels of government. This concept at least sounds more interesting to me than what seems more likely that we will get--a broad caricature of the president in a paint-by-numbers retelling of the VH1 highlights of the last 8 years.

Also, releasing this before Bush's term is even up seems kind of risky to me. Bush is fully capable of making another mistake of cinematic proportions during the last few months of his presidency. Stone's film is going to look pretty dated next year if he misses out on this.

Fletch F. Fletch · #170 Post by **Fletch F. Fletch** » Thu Aug 28, 2008 9:21 am

Josh Brolin is interviewed and talks about his portrayal of Bush.

A couple of new pics from Empire magazine.

tavernier · #171 Post by **tavernier** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:25 pm

Thandie talks about playing Condi.

Antoine Doinel · #172 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 7:17 pm

Take a look at the cabinet.

Oedipax · #173 Post by **Oedipax** » Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:16 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:Take a look at the cabinet.

Speaking of which, the original (by Annie Leibovitz) is a real hoot these days.

aox · #174 Post by **aox** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:14 am

If You Liked Nixon …

flyonthewall2983 · #175 Post by **flyonthewall2983** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:45 pm

YouTube is holding a contest in conjunction with the film. Details are here.

W. (Oliver Stone, 2008)

[url=http://url]URL text[/url]