"W." is an entertaining film which presents a very small but interesting window into the largely secretive Bush White House. We see many of the major actors in key policy decisions - but in a fairly glossed over manor. In fact, we learn a very little about these people - it's much like playing a virtual race car game, you get a general feel for the real thing but reality is far from it. Consequently, this could be largely attributed to the limited format and scope of the film.
The real intent of this film was to highlight the dynamics W.'s life - a man continually trying to overcome his perceived and real short comings, trying to feel self-made, trying to fight off addition, and trying to always gain the approval of his father and the 'Bush name'. However, in chiefly focusing in on Bush while also trying to tackle the larger story of this administration's policies and politics ends up telling a truncated story about the latter.
The movie operated in a subtle code of sorts, some very brief comments carried serious implications in reality - the decision to use torture, to suppress the media, the desire to invade Iran, a semi-dubious geo-political neo-con agenda and so forth. The hardest pressed issue was Iraq, and the desire to have the infamous "16 words" included about "yellow cake from Niger" (2003 State of the Union address) and the implication that "WMD threat" was a ploy among a few ideas entertained to trigger war.
Thus, the movie is still powerful in a subtle way - Powell, a moderate, symbolizes a lot here - how the neo-cons strong-armed a policy of regime change, the ineffectual role Condi may have played, the lack of using soft power, and of course the now infamous "pottery barn principal" - "you break it you bought it" on Iraq. Seemingly the intent of this film was not to come off historical but have us to see how serious policy decisions were made - sometimes under ridiculously funny circumstances.
An important thing to mention was the movie's good direction - the use of lighting, scenes, and so forth was absolutely brilliant conveying everything from drunkenness to dubious motivations. Very few mistakes were made visually such as a computer running Windows Vista during a time depicted before 2006. Particularly good moments included Rove depicted under a mix of shadow and light, the drunken scenes, and the dream sequences.
What was politically missing from film? What wasn't so subtle was his how this film seemed to implicate that the idea of invading Iraq originated with Bush[43] supporting the idea that that he was always "the decider" when it had existed as far back as the Republican controlled 90's Senate. Plus it down-plays Cheney - the most powerful veep in US history. Another thing missing was Bush family friend - Saudi prince Bandar who played a significant role in W's run up and presidency meeting with him regularly. Little was mentioned about Rummy's routine dressing down of people and how his hijacking of power precipitated abject failure executing the Iraq war. Also there is a no obvious connection to Cheney-Rummy which dated back to the Nixon Administration. Also the David Kay summary as head of ISG (a pit bull like character) was key symbolism lost, this was in the film but doesn't full exploit his earnest feelings about Condi and the WMD issue - basically calling her a lap dog and that Iraq easily did not have WMDs as Cheney tries to inject his own pathetic "evidence" to the contrary.
Seemingly Stone wanted to tell a more stark and realistic story but probably understood the implications both internationally and domestically - also perhaps trying to give a more "even handed" label to this film as well.
In the end, you resign to liking W. the person, and in a sense feel empathy for this protagonist. The movie pays attention to the details it had presented and in the end, make's the film W. quite likable as well. This is a great film and worthy of high praise - however, if you want a more serious chronology of the "Bush war", you'd be better served turning to print or public media programming.
The real intent of this film was to highlight the dynamics W.'s life - a man continually trying to overcome his perceived and real short comings, trying to feel self-made, trying to fight off addition, and trying to always gain the approval of his father and the 'Bush name'. However, in chiefly focusing in on Bush while also trying to tackle the larger story of this administration's policies and politics ends up telling a truncated story about the latter.
The movie operated in a subtle code of sorts, some very brief comments carried serious implications in reality - the decision to use torture, to suppress the media, the desire to invade Iran, a semi-dubious geo-political neo-con agenda and so forth. The hardest pressed issue was Iraq, and the desire to have the infamous "16 words" included about "yellow cake from Niger" (2003 State of the Union address) and the implication that "WMD threat" was a ploy among a few ideas entertained to trigger war.
Thus, the movie is still powerful in a subtle way - Powell, a moderate, symbolizes a lot here - how the neo-cons strong-armed a policy of regime change, the ineffectual role Condi may have played, the lack of using soft power, and of course the now infamous "pottery barn principal" - "you break it you bought it" on Iraq. Seemingly the intent of this film was not to come off historical but have us to see how serious policy decisions were made - sometimes under ridiculously funny circumstances.
An important thing to mention was the movie's good direction - the use of lighting, scenes, and so forth was absolutely brilliant conveying everything from drunkenness to dubious motivations. Very few mistakes were made visually such as a computer running Windows Vista during a time depicted before 2006. Particularly good moments included Rove depicted under a mix of shadow and light, the drunken scenes, and the dream sequences.
What was politically missing from film? What wasn't so subtle was his how this film seemed to implicate that the idea of invading Iraq originated with Bush[43] supporting the idea that that he was always "the decider" when it had existed as far back as the Republican controlled 90's Senate. Plus it down-plays Cheney - the most powerful veep in US history. Another thing missing was Bush family friend - Saudi prince Bandar who played a significant role in W's run up and presidency meeting with him regularly. Little was mentioned about Rummy's routine dressing down of people and how his hijacking of power precipitated abject failure executing the Iraq war. Also there is a no obvious connection to Cheney-Rummy which dated back to the Nixon Administration. Also the David Kay summary as head of ISG (a pit bull like character) was key symbolism lost, this was in the film but doesn't full exploit his earnest feelings about Condi and the WMD issue - basically calling her a lap dog and that Iraq easily did not have WMDs as Cheney tries to inject his own pathetic "evidence" to the contrary.
Seemingly Stone wanted to tell a more stark and realistic story but probably understood the implications both internationally and domestically - also perhaps trying to give a more "even handed" label to this film as well.
In the end, you resign to liking W. the person, and in a sense feel empathy for this protagonist. The movie pays attention to the details it had presented and in the end, make's the film W. quite likable as well. This is a great film and worthy of high praise - however, if you want a more serious chronology of the "Bush war", you'd be better served turning to print or public media programming.