Evaluating W

• email this story
• read comments (43)
• post a comment
• 
  
  

A few cynical cheap-shotters wrote yesterday that the excerpts of Stanley Weiser's W script, provided yesterday in an ABC News article by Marcus Baram, led them to wonder if this was some kind of April Fool's joke. These guys are monkeys, in my opinion, and they need to reel it in. Or better yet, consider what Weiser wrote this morning in an e-mail and what I wrote back.

"I'm glad that you see the potential in W," Weiser began. "As the writer of the script, you saw an early draft. The ABC News piece only pulled out the whacky sensationalistic points from that draft, as you know.

"I'm also glad you nailed Ari Fleischer's denial of Bush talking about kicking Saddam's motherfucking ass across the Mideast because this was sourced directly from Michael Isikoff's book, Hubris.

"A few of your cynical readers think this is an April Fool's joke. So will others in ten years, three trillion dollars and thousands more dead when they look back at this fiasco."

"Thanks for your note," I wrote Weiser back. "I'm constantly irked by some of those little right-wing bitches and cheap cynic contrarians who write in response to various Hollywood Elsewhere pieces. The draft I read might be an early stab, but I've gone over the 10.15.07 W twice now and it's a lot deeper and fuller than it seems at first. It's tightly written and clear of mind -- everything is very choice and precise, and it never wavers from its focus.

"The general reaction has been 'is that all there is'? In other words, because it's an Oliver Stone movie, people want some kind of 'holy shit!' lightning-bolt element ...and they feel this isn't that. What they're reading, instead, is a well-honed portrait of who this guy is, what's driven him, what he's always wanted, how he's gotten to where he is, and what the central themes of his life seem to be (i.e., the drag-downs and the uplift).

"But in the modesty of this approach there is serious virtue. The more I thought about it, the more I liked the script precisely because it's not wild-ass, because it really seems to have its ducks in a row and is carefully shaped and ordered, because the dialogue is very tight and pruned down, because you seem to have captured Bush's speech style perfectly (or so it seems to me), because I believed each and every line.

"Not once did I sense the presence of Hollywood far-left liberals getting off on skewering Bush because it's in their blood and it makes them clap their hands and say yeah. I sensed a real submission to documented or reliably sourced fact. I say this having only read Bob Woodward's two books about the Bush White House, but you seem to have done your homework.

"Yesterday Chris Matthews said during the news-review section of Hardball (in reaction to Baram's ABC News piece) that "this being an Oliver Stone film, don't expect a rigorous adherence to the facts" or words to that effect. Whether each and every line is precisely sourced or not (which would surprise me -- a writer has to have a little leeway to make a script feel organically human and alive), this is precisely what I got from this 10.15 draft, that I'm reading a heavily-researched, straight-dope recounting.

"Boiled down, W is a cogent dramatic summary of the significant chapters and stages in the life of an aw-shucks, smart-but-dumb, silver-spoon fratboy who, like all of us, has had his issues and limitations and hang-ups and challenges to deal with, but nonetheless managed to grow into a donkey demagogue of the first order.

"I can't wait to see what Josh Brolin does with the role. And I keep seeing Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney. And I love the mention of Cats being Bush's favorite stage musical. (Cats...asshole! He probably loves Mamma Mia also!) And the metaphor of the fly ball at the very end is just right."

comment #1

alynch says ...

And boom goes the dynamite.

comment #2

alynch says ...

But seriously Jeff, it wasn't only your readers who thought it might've been an April Fool's joke. New York Magazine and Defamer, among others, thought the exact same thing. Some of those lines highlighted were just laughably bad, such as the freedom fries one.

However, I'm still very much looking forward to this movie, and I'm glad that you liked the script. Occasionally clunky dialogue can be easily fixed in the rewrite process. There didn't seem to be anything especially wrong with the story structure being described in the article.

comment #3

DavidF says ...

You know you're not allowed to keep the joke going on April 2, right?

You're not actually implying this script has Dick Cheney being against invading Iraq, right? Or that Bush actually said of Chirac, "'I'd like to stuff a plate of freedom fries down that slick piece of s--'s throat!"??

If so, that's a shitty script. It sounds worse than a TV movie. And I'm not saying that because I am pro-Bush in any sense of the word (okay, one sense of the word.). If saying so makes me a "monkey," um....

Nah, it's gotta be a joke. That script just sounded far too lame.

comment #4

JustThisGuy says ...

Interesting. Now I wonder how long it's going to be before the script leaks out to the general public.

comment #5

calraigh says ...

It sounds awful.I think Stone completely lost me with Heaven and Earth and then Alexander came out.Irredeemable in my humble opinion.He seems to have absolutely no compass anymore when it comes to a good script.
In other news, my Taoiseach(Prime Minister)(of Ireland) resigned today and Irish society is reeling as a result.Marches outside the Dàil, teary-eyed politicians, calls for a mandate for the people and our once buoyant economy in jeopardy for the first time in 10 years, after a lifetime of dole queues and recession..Oh well.

comment #6

Bocephus says ...

"Cats...asshole! He probably loves Mamma Mia also!"

That made me giggle.

comment #7

gruver1 says ...

Wells to DavidF: The freedom fries line may or may not stay, but Weiser's understanding of Bush's Texas-transplant yahoo personality -- a faux-buckaroo guy who shoots, thinks and talks from the hip and uses hayseed country-boy-isms in conversation and gives everyone on his staff down-home nicknames -- seems very authentic to me. And yes, brainiac -- Cheney was against invading Iraq when he was counselling Bush Sr. in the days before the start of the Gulf War. Cheney has said as much in interviews.

comment #8

Aguirre says ...

so because i thought a traditional (read: tired) biopic structure wouldn't best serve the unfortunate story of the George W. Bush presidency, I'm a... monkey (and also maybe a neo-con)???? jeff, seriously... you're embarrassing yourself. haven't read the script but my comment is nevertheless fodder for serious discussion and does not warrant a laughably hypocritical, neanderthal-esque dismissal as a "cheap shot." why not treat your exceptionally loyal readers (for me, since the day your mug appeared on reel.com) with even a modicum of respect or perhaps even *gasp* an apology?

comment #9

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Aguirre: I didn't say everyone who wrote in was a right-wing bitch (I said I'm irked by "some of those little right-wing bitches"), but the general tone of putting down the script based on the ABC summary was, I strongly felt, arrogant and blustery and sloppy. I know what the script is and how it plays (or played when Weiser wrote it last fall).

Let me understand your comment clearly -- because you've been reading the column since the Reel.com days (which I thank you for sincerely...really) I'm supposed to turn my brain off when you and yours write something cynical and brash? I'm not into turning the other cheek...no offense. I'm sorry if I get heated up about this stuff, but when someone voices what I know to be an ignorant viewpoint, I sometimes shift into "Full Metal Jacket" mode -- I am Matthew Modine and Animal Mother combined, and the ignorant-opinion-spewer is the female Vietcong sniper shooting her AK47 from the second floor of that bombed-out building.

comment #10

frankbooth says ...

Two of the people in that photo look alike, and Brolin is not one of them.

The makeup had better be phenomenal, and Brolin capable of a (young) DeNiro-like ability for complete transformation.

So far, he's given off a hyper-masculine, Nolte-ish vibe in his work. I'm not saying Bush is feminine, but he's far from rugged and has the presence of a middle-manager. It's past cliche to say "overgrown frat-boy", but that's exactly how he's always come across. Brolin will have to make himself smaller somehow if he's going to pull this off.

I'm not saying he can't do it. He impressed the hell out of me in NCFOM as a man who's stubborn to the point of weakness, and maybe those attributes are why he was cast. I'm just saying it's hard for me to imagine until I see a clip.

comment #11

JustThisGuy says ...

John, how would you say the script is structured vis a vis a comparison to other Stone biopics such as Nixon and Alexander. Is this also in the format of numerous nested flashbacks?

Also,would you be able to provide some sort of more thorough review of the script that would let us see the script from a prism other than the nearly jokish tone of the ABC script review?

comment #12

berg says ...

I am sure Stone is familiar with the Alexandra Pelosi docu Journeys with George, where W has cheetos stained fingers and tells pelosi to be careful with the other journalists on the press plane because most of them aren't really friends ...

comment #13

MilkMan says ...

I don't understand the excitement generated by this script. Oliver Stone hasn't made a good movie since...never. His scripts are obvious and symbollically inane, and he directs with the heaviest hand imaginable. None of his movies date well. The Doors, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth, NBK, they were all stale the day after they were released. The guy has TWO academy awards too many, and I say fuck him and his efforts to be relevant again.

comment #14

Aguirre says ...

aguirre to wells: fair enough, and believe you me - your tendencies (of all kinds) are duly noted. any initial reaction to yesterday's post on my part would have been ignorant by default as i haven't read the screenplay in question, and maybe it says more about W the president than it does about W the screenplay that the quoted snatches of dialogue read like sorry jokes... but i'd imagine that if you hadn't read the script you would have reacted somewhat similarly, and it's not as if you've never been quick to the trigger about some film sight unseen (or unread). so no, you don't owe your long-time readers any particular courtesy other than an understanding of where they're coming from. some people are here just to stir the pot and they deserve your reflexive wrath, but for each retort where you call someone "brainiac" it wouldn't kill you to respond to the hundreds of thoughtful posts you're fortunate enough to receive from your ever-increasing audience.

that being said, i still can't see this film being a worthwhile endeavor if it functions in true biopic fashion... i think i'd rather it focus on the interior dynamic of his presidency than artificial psycho-analytical conjecture from his days as a fratboy. and if this film is designed to serve as a time-capsule...."A few of your cynical readers think this is an April Fool's joke. So will others in ten years, three trillion dollars and thousands more dead when they look back at this fiasco." i can't really imagine a more indelible legacy of the bush presidency than the fiasco that is the war in iraq, and if the film is designed as a portrait of a limited man who suddenly finds himself a demagogue of the highest order, leading his sheep to the slaughter... well... just look at my moniker. sure, the details are more than a little different but the fact remains that i still see this as a completely unnecessary project, and given that WORLD TRADE CENTER was unspeakably awful... yeah, i'm gonna be a bit cynical.

nevertheless, your fine summation of the script has given me a glimmer of hope, and i look forward to following the gestation of this project and how you respond to its various incarnations.

comment #15

Pelham123 says ...

-- "this being 'HARDBALL', don't expect a rigorous adherence to the facts". FIXED.

comment #16

Jay says ...

That Chris Matthews jab about Stone not adhering to facts gets on my nerves. I have read many books and seen plenty of docu-type shows about the JFK assassination and Nixon's life. Almost everything in both of Stone's films on those subjects has a prior precedent in some other source. Just because the ideas seem far-fetched does not mean he invented them for his own fancy.

I can't understand why whole societies decide to turn on specific artists and denounce them in a lock-step way; especially when it is someone giving their all for their craft.

comment #17

dangovich says ...

I agree with frankbooth. Brolin is too rugged to play Bush.

And I still vote "too soon." We didn't really know the people in Flight 93. But Bush and his people are so familiar to us.

Is there any precedent for a political movie featuring characters who are still actively part of the scene?

comment #18

calraigh says ...

I'm with you Milkman.This just leaves me cold.Oliver Stone has no dynamism and it's arguable he ever did. The whole project looks like a damp squib.Who exactly among you would pay money to see this?

comment #19

Jay T. says ...

This is WAY too soon and is going to be awful... Oliver Stone has lost his touch. I haven't liked any of his films since U-Turn, and that was 11 years ago.

comment #20

VoiceOfReason says ...

Does anyone else think it was lame of Oliver Stone to issue a public apology to the people of Turkey for making them look bad in Midnight Express?

comment #21

JustThisGuy says ...

Crap, wasn't thinking when I posted. Meant to ask Jeffrey if he could post a more thorough review of the script to give us an alternative to ABC's jokish-in-tone review. Don't know why I typed "John" must not have been thinking. I guess this is a lesson, look before you post.

I feel like an ass.

comment #22

Jimmycrackcorn says ...

I'm no right winger, but I would have thought the excerpts posted in the ABC piece were sheer parody, too, if not for the complete straightforwardness and non-Onion-isnesss of the surrounding piece. We are going to have to trust you that the rest of the script is not on the level of the "freedom fries" line, and that the ABC reporter deliberately pulled out every embarrassing element he could.

comment #23

SaveFarris says ...

If the rest of the script is even halfway close to the snippets ABC released yesterday, this will be the most boring movie ever. Even if you think the real George W. is that much of a stooge, actually portraying that on-screen in that much of a heavy-handed manner means there will be no tension, no drama, no arc. He's a dunce: we get it.

Having that drilled into our heads over and over and over (and over and over...) for 2.5-3 hours sounds worse than waterboarding.

comment #24

bb says ...

Maybe that script wasn't an April Fool's joke but it certainly is a joke.

It is refreshing though to see that the screenwriter is dedicated to an objective treatment.

comment #25

Geoff says ...

I fucking love that baseball fantasy he has at the end. It sounds like it could be a great character piece.

But look, I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

comment #26

Sean says ...

I really don't get the unfavorable reaction toward the script excerpts. Can no one see someone like Sorkin (who I'll call down as a well-like scribe of political scenarios) writing the Chirac line for a character he was sympathetic with, as a sort-of-kidding-but-not-really riposte? I don't see any hanging offenses in what the ABC piece excerpted, and I really like the last shot.

comment #27

actionman says ...

Oliver Stone is an artist, a true American original, and his films are filled with passion, ideas, incredible technique, and social relevance (for the most part).

From the sounds of this script, it sounds like Stone, for whatever reason, isn't looking to create controversy with the film. Maybe he's going for a United 93/Greengrass style pseudo-doc treatment.

I detest George Bush so I was hoping for a darker, more scathing look at him. Either way, I'll be seeing it.

comment #28

actionman says ...

And I laughed about the "freedom fries....slick piece of shit" line. It was funny. Can totally picture that putz saying those words.

comment #29

Geoff says ...

Sometimes I really don't think people get Oliver Stone. Take a look at NIXON. He treats it like a Shakespeare tragedy. I actually feel bad for that intelligent yet extremely flawed man when I watch that film.

Oliver Stone likes to explore what exactly makes a person tick and who they are.

comment #30

Bilge says ...

If the ABC News article highlighted all the silly parts of the script and left all the brilliant bits unmentioned, then it's their fault, not ours. That article ABSOLUTELY read like an April Fool's Joke, Jeff. I'm probably a bigger lib'rul than you could ever hope to be, but nothing excerpted in that article sounded anything like a real script, I'm sorry to say.

I do hope the film turns out okay, because I actually think Oliver Stone is a pretty great filmmaker, and I think NIXON is an unheralded masterpiece. But I'm not too optimistic about the news that this thing is being rushed into production to make some kind of November release date. (Um, why exactly?)

comment #31

Alfredo says ...

Hey guys! I was just watching this horrible Stanley Kubrick film and heard this crappy bit of dialogue: "Gentlemen you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" How bad is that? Must be an April Fool's joke. I mean no one could be that stupid! Oh wait...

comment #32

SaveFarris says ...

Alfredo: co-me-dy.

Everything I've seen (except for that script) says that W. is supposed to be a serious biopic. If Stone were simply re-making "That's My Bush", then I don't think anyone would care what the dialogue was. But if the picture wants to be treated "like a Shakespearian Tragedy", then that script is it's own worst enemy.

comment #33

DavidF says ...

Gruver - Braniac was unnecessarily harsh. Anyway, I meant to write RUMSFELD is portrayed as against the war, not Cheney. I still say the script (as decribed by ABC) does not depict the personalities in Bob Woodward's books. (And there are three of those, not two, Braniac.)

While I meant to take issue with the script's (alleged) portrayal of Rumsfeld as anti-war, your point that Cheney was against the war in 1990 doesn't really speak to the fact he was all hot-and-bothered to get in there in 2002, Braniac.

I can't comment on the script directly because (obviously) I don't have it. But I'm with Bilge in saying ABC's description sure made it sound like a joke, and let me add, a wasted opportunity.

I mean - it shows when Bush choked on the pretzel watching a football game? It's got 2-odd hours to get at what kinda man W is and has time for that and you expect me to take it seriously? It ends with him dreaming of playing centrefield for the Texas Rangers? Really?

comment #34

Alfredo says ...

Mr. Bueller-

So a "Shakespearin Tragedy" must be devoid of the absurd?

comment #35

Geoff says ...

I'm not saying that W. is going to be like a Shakespeare tragedy.

comment #36

MarkEbner says ...

Right, but how do you like niggers?

comment #37

MarkEbner says ...

Is "How do you like niggers" in the W script?

comment #38

moviemaniac2002 says ...

The whole point of Bush is....is that there is
no point...there's nobody home, nothing there.
Maybe that'll be the point of Stone's approach, or
maybe he'll create his very own Bush to
suit whatever his agenda is.

Cheyney, on the other hand, I think is a glorious
subject for Stone and whatever actor plays
him...our own modern version of Chaplin's
"Little Dictator"....an utter complete coward who
lusts to wage war with other people's sons and
daughters as cannon fodder.

comment #39

BurmaShave says ...

"Oliver Stone has no dynamism and it's arguable he ever did. '

How much wrong can there be in one sentence?

comment #40

Chris Willman says ...

"The whole point of Bush is....is that there is
no point...there's nobody home, nothing there."

Congratulations on discovering "the whole point" of Bush! So many have tried and failed before you. Who knew it was so simple? I can only hope the movie is two and a half hours of just this pointlessness.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

Now http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117983375.html?categoryid=13&cs=1
is a movie Stone should've directed.

comment #42

Bob Violence says ...

The "Shakespearean tragedy" stuff was just sort of offensive in Nixon (I'm sure there are plenty of Vietnamese and Cambodians with lots to say about the heart-rending pathos of Richard Nixon's life), but if he tries it with Bush (who makes Nixon seem like a moral and intellectual heavyweight by comparison) it's going to have 'em rolling in the aisles. And hell, maybe the Strangelove approach is actually what Stone is going for, but given that he barely even seems to have a sense of self-awareness -- much less humor -- I'm kinda doubting it.

comment #43

Sweetbubba says ...

This whole project just seems sad and pathetic. A script lacking in historical perspective but riddled with demogoguery that'll appeal solely to venom-addled brains. A director who was only relevant when telling personal stories about Vietnam determined to speed his way to laughing stock status. A promising star one of the worst career missteps in Hollywood history.

What's next, Sean Penn's Ariel Sharon biopic starring Louis Farrakhan?

Post a Comment