Your Turn: “W” Stoned

Controlling man with headset tells scared puppet actor what he needs to do next. Daddy bought the credentials on his chest, though we see how fragile they are. Through the window we see Gitmo, safe behind bars. The old phone is about to ring, Daddy calling with news about W’s upcoming National Guard wheeze. What doesn’t jive at all is W looking beat up – but then it may just be makeup by Karl Rove.

What a waste of film stock.

Reminds me of the famous photo of Dubya cheating while playing club rugby at Yale, punching an opponent in the face while holding him in a headlock. Never did think rules applied to him. And apparently he’s right! Last train for Nuremburg….

I agree with John–a waste of film stock. Why glorify an embarrassment? There are thousands of film biographies I’d love to see; this isn’t one of them.
But I have to offer a counterpoint to Scarabus; I hadn’t seen that photo of Bush playing rugby until just now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/college/coll06brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Two points about rugby (from a former player):
1. At times, you have to punch people. (i.e. “enforce” rules yourself, particularly when the other sides’ Forwards are illegally messing with your Backs…) This is an accepted part of the game, and not so much of a big deal. (Compared to getting plowed over by a 210-pound prop, a punch is sort of like a gentle reminder… a firm tap that says, “excuse ME, sir, but you need to really start thinking about playing cleaner, or things are going to get ugly.”)
BUT:
2. It doesn’t look here like he’s actually punching the guy. It would be stupid to try some “enforcement” on the ballcarrier, anyway, because that’s right where the Ref will be looking.
Instead, this photo shows something very different: a high tackle. (In rugby, you are absolutely NOT allowed to tackle someone by the neck or head. This is how people get killed–broken necks–and high tackle penalties are STRICTLY enforced by the ref. (This was assuredly a penalty kick for the other side, unless the ref was Mr. Magoo.)
So the rugby photo shows something different than a “cheater.” It shows a rank amateur, flagrantly violating the rules (probably because he doesn’t know any better), causing a dangerous play and (likely) a possession-changing penalty. Sound familiar??!
Which is why I don’t want to see the film. Why watch two hours of a silver-spooned stumblebum become increasingly convinced of his own greatness? Sounds like hell. Or real life. I want genuine, fantasy escapism in my entertainment.. science fiction like “The West Wing”…
Also, note that Bush’s legs look scrawny. Real rugby players have enormous quads (forwards) or hamstrings (backs). This guy is a dabbler. pshaw.

“It’s: ‘Booyah-Boo-yuh!’ Y’all…”

So long as Oliver Stone immortalizes Bush as the donkey’s arse that he is, then I think it’s a fine use of film.
W thinks he can get away from the judgement of the historians because it’ll take a hundred years for a consensus and he’ll be dead by then anyway. Not only does this show that he’s the worst student of Jesus to ever proclaim his faith (avoiding judgement day by lying and dying is NOT part of god’s playbook), but it’s totally false – he’s been pegged by over 70% of his own citizens, most of the historians and now… the ultimate .. he’ll be “set in Stone” as a failure before he even leaves office !
From the looks of this picture, at least, Oliver is planning on making him look like the chump he is. Bloody, torn, and in a prison setting. I hope Oliver’s view is just foreshadowing for when Bush gets a taste of international justice and ends up in the Hague to live out his days as the war criminal he is!

Looking at all the actors portraying characters in real life, I am struck by how much better looking and more even-featured (as in having evenly-balanced brains?) they are. I’m not certain I need to see a movie to be reinforced in my negative opinions about this Administration: why didn’t Stone make this film earlier? Was he scared of what Bush might do to him? The timing is a bit late to have done us any good. It should have been made in 2003-4.

As much as I cannot stand the guy as a ‘leader,’ I don’t know that I would call Stone’s film a waste. Not yet.
When I first heard he was doing this project and the word was that it would be a fairly straight bio-pic, I was intrigued, and I still am.
Some of Stone’s films have been completely unwatchable if not down right laughably bad (“Alexander” anyone?), but occasionally he will hit the mark with a true shot. Stone has been a pretty staunch critic of his own generation, probably more so than any other film maker save Michael Moore (no coincidence Stone mentions him in the LA Times blog piece). If done well, I would anticipate that this film could be a subtle critique of the second Boomer president.
Stone just needs to let the facts and the man’s actions do the talking, he won’t need to be polemical nor pedantic. Setting aside partisan feelings, Stone is correct that the story of the life of George W. Bush is fairly compelling on its own. George W. Bush’s story is a weirdly f@cked up reverse kind of Horatio Alger tale. He’s not the lowly stationed yet noble and morally sound hero succeeds not by obeying the rules and thrift and hard work, that classic American myth. Nope, W. flaunted the rules of the society he born into, abused his privileged station and lived a life of excess, and after failing upwards in business, finally found real ’success’ (using that word loosely, of course) in politics. No shock that, since the ability to set aside morality and megalomania are character traits that are often beneficial in the political arena.
Nah, this could be a good one. I’ll reserve judgement until I see the film.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Brolin_Wright_others_in_film_crew_0712.html
hmm…’shreve/pet muh goatz port’n’starbor’d’