As George W.’s career in politics fades into history and
ignominy, could his future in show business be just beginning? Could Oliver
Stone’s “W,” which opened last weekend, be the first in what might prove to be
an entertainment gold mine?
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. How did “W” fare among
the critics and those in the know? Like the President himself, the film has
stirred extremes in opinions, some mutually contradictory.
For example, right-leaning "New York Post" critic Kyle Smith’s
review excoriated the movie partly on the basis that it is a liberal hatchet
job full of typical Oliver Stone distortions of the truth. He concludes: "Stone and his cast plainly don’t understand George W. Bush so they ... settle for
a two-hour “Saturday Night Live” sketch that skims every surface.”
On the other hand, the "New York Press’s"
ever-contrarian and crypto-reactionary Armond White hails the movie for
opposite reasons: he claims it vindicates the president from 8 years of lies
from the liberal media. His conclusion:
“Our mainstream media’s vindictiveness toward George W. Bush
has dismantled even the illusion of fairness. For the past eight years, the
media elite have fought back against Bush winning the presidency in 2000,
corrupting the purpose of journalism and entertainment by being vehemently
partisan and ferociously illiberal. By opposing the mob mentality that would
hang Bush in effigy, W. imaginatively sympathizes with the most maligned
president in modern history.
They both can’t be right. Maybe neither one is.
So what do the experts say, those who actually knew the President
personally? Scott McLellan, former toadying Press Secretary and current administration
squealer with his tell-all book “What Happened,” has an opinion. After commenting on the film’s
Oedipal angle (Could be true, he opines) and some of Stone’s cheaper shots (W
was no dummy, he reminds us) McLellan concludes:
"My guess is the most vocal Bush critics will view Stone’s account
as too soft on Bush and his top advisers, while Bush’s chief advocates will ignore
and dismiss it. But I think the average Joe just might find it entertaining and
thought-provoking. I won’t go as far as to borrow a line from Bush 43 and say, 'Heck of a job, Stonie.' But I will borrow one from Bush 41 and say, 'It’s
good, not bad.'"
Bush 41 -- what a phrasemaker.
As for Jeb Bush, former governor of the state that gave W the presidency
back in 2000, describes the film as “hooey.”
But what about the only opinion and poll that matters, the box
office? Though some predicted the film would be a flop, it held up surprisingly well, placing fourth
in top grosses for last weekend at some $10 million and taking in a respectable
$5,000 or so a screen. More intriguing, perhaps, is the fact that it’s the only film,
at least in my recollection, for which political exit polls were conducted (for example,
89% of patrons said they disapproved of Bush and 78% said they were voting for
Obama. 6% said they were voting for McCain and only were watching “W” because
the liberal weasel theater owners said they were buying tickets for “American
Carol.”).
So maybe the George W. Bush franchise will flourish. Will Ferrell
thinks so. No doubt stirred by my description of his impression of the
President as the “edgiest and funniest,” he is taking it to
Broadway for a one-man show called "You’re Welcome America. A Final Night
With George W Bush."