On the Experience of Seeing “W”

I went to a press screening of W, Oliver Stone’s new George W. Bush biopic, last night in L.A. I do not want to say too much about the film itself or my assessment of it yet, but you can read my review on Christianity Today‘s movies website on Friday.

I will say that it was one of the most interesting movie-going experiences I’ve had in a long time. The theater was completely full, both with press and average filmgoers. Leonard Maltin was sitting a few rows ahead of me, which was cool. Typical of a West L.A. arthouse movie audience, the crowd was largely partisan towards the left. The first time Dubya (Josh Brolin) showed up on screen, the crowd roared with laughter.

It was a strange atmosphere, though, because I got the sense that this crowd expected Oliver Stone to really destroy George W. Bush–to offer the definitive demonizing portrayal that so many Bush-haters have longed for. They didn’t get that, and yet they got a really amazing, complicated film. The crowd didn’t know what to do with it. It reminded me of films where the audience forces itself to laugh–and laughs overly loud at the truly funny moments because that’s what they thought they signed up for.

In any case, there were a few notable reactions from audience members when the final credits rolled. A few people booed, Leonard Maltin sat mesmerized, and the guy behind me said “I never thought I’d say this, but I was actually charmed by George W. Bush.”

For me, it was a strangely therapeutic experience. But I’ll go in to that in my full review on Friday.

In the meantime, check out my new commentary on election year films, published yesterday on CT.

Advertisements

6 responses to “On the Experience of Seeing “W”

  1. Interesting… I may change my mind about seeing the movie now.

  2. As a typically partisan lefty, I didn’t want to see this just because I can’t stand Oliver Stone.

  3. Also, re: your commentary on election-year films, how does Primary Colors classify simply as a film ‘about elections’? It’s as much about Bill Clinton as W is about George W. Bush— only the names have been changed to protect the innocent.

  4. Intriguing, I’m glad the movie is not a complete laugh fest. That’s what The Daily Show and SNL are for. Tina Fey’s Sarah Palin impression is LOL funny.

  5. Why does your review refer to JFK as a biopic?

  6. “The Architect” is portrayed here as a surreptitious, Blackberry-dependent, behind-the-curtain wizard with no conscience but an unstoppable political will. Who knows, though. Maybe that’s accurate.

    Say someone made a film that showed Hillary Clinton with a lesbian lover. Would you say, “Who knows, though. Maybe that’s accurate”? I’m sure that Rove isn’t YOUR kind of Christian, but I have no more reason to believe that he has “no conscience” than I have reason to believe that David Axelrod has no conscience.

    Loved your observation that “the Bushes are real people.” Profound. Many who read your review will be surprised.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s