These people never learn. Other than some diehard BDS sufferers, who in their right mind is going to pay to see an Oliver Stone depiction of George W. Bush? Fair or not, the president suffers from low poll numbers and we've heard for some time that America suffers from Bush fatigue, so it's curious why any studio would greenlight such a project and begin filming while he's still in office.
Hollywood apparently has learned nothing with the seemingly endless string of antiwar flicks bombing, so now we'll get the moonbat look at Bush. One can only imagine how Dick Cheney, Donaly Rumsfeld and the nefarious cabal of neocons will be portrayed.
Bush has been the most scrutinized president in modern times thanks to the explosion of the blogosphere, so it's not as if Stone would be able to shed any new light on his life or presidency. You can be sure, however, he will be taking creative license.
Shreveport has lured another major feature film production.
"W." is in preproduction and will begin shooting April 21 and likely wrap June 20, according to Louisiana's Office of Entertainment Industry Development.
"W." will star Josh Brolin as President George W. Bush and will be directed by Oliver Stone, according to the Internet Movie Database.
Brolin earned acclaim in 2007 for his roles in "No Country for Old Men," "In the Valley of Elah" and "American Gangster."
Stone, a Hollywood icon, directed "Platoon," "Nixon," "JFK," "Wall Street," "World Trade Center" and "Alexander."
In January, Stone spoke about the project to Daily Variety.
"It's a behind-the-scenes approach, similar to 'Nixon,' to give a sense of what it's like to be in his skin," he told the trade publication. "But if 'Nixon' was a symphony, this is more like a chamber piece and not as dark in tone."
Barbra Streisand's son-in-law as Bush.
Swell.
It's not as if Stone is impartial when it comes to Bush, so don't expect a reality-based portrayal.
Actress Elizabeth Banks has been cast to play Laura Bush.
I guess someone could do a film on Hillary Clinton's Bosnia trip, but the title "True Lies" is already taken.
—James Murray is a New Jersey-based blogger
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
These films are an effort to
March 26, 2008 - 13:07 ET by Dan The Man 2These films are an effort to distort the record and hopefully, for them, to inrfluence the recording of history. I wonder if President Bush is going to object like President Clinton did, and then if Bush does object will it be heard or even acted on?
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
You are correct. They have
March 26, 2008 - 13:43 ET by kgYou are correct. They have an agenda and need this film as a record of proof on Bush for later generations.
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
Well, in my opinion, the
March 26, 2008 - 21:06 ET by motherbeltWell, in my opinion, the big question is what will he call it? I don't mean title. I mean will it be called a "documentary" a "docudrama," fiction, biography?
We already have half a generation that thinks "JFK" was a documentary. Maybe, like Michael he'll say it's part satire, part fact, part humor, part opinion...or all of the above: a "work of art."
Lets see..if they release
March 26, 2008 - 13:20 ET by bigtimerLets see..if they release this late summer, early fall they must think this is going to hurt the election somehow...
What fools.
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
"W"? I thought we
March 26, 2008 - 13:23 ET by Hero Squad"W"?
I thought we weren't allowed to use the middle name to make reference to a political personality anymore.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
Hey Hero... Excellent
March 26, 2008 - 13:35 ET by bigtimerHey Hero...
Excellent point...but heck it is always okay if you have an 'R' after your name doncha' know..
"Never murder your opponent when he is committing suicide." ~ W. Churchill
Is W also the last name of
March 26, 2008 - 13:44 ET by balboaIs W also the last name of a dictator we've recently overthrown?
Get a sense of humor
March 26, 2008 - 15:45 ET by Indiana JoeGeez, bal. WE didn't name the guy. We didn't name Saddam, either. It's just a coincidence. But one that's supposed to be "hush-hush."
If it doesn't matter, why is it such an issue with you guys?
It's okay to call conservatives everything from Nazis to fascists, but it's not okay to ever mention that Barack Obama's real middle name is Hussein?
Placing it off-limits is what's made it an issue at all. And set the joke up.
Get a grip, wouldja?
No one placed it "off
March 26, 2008 - 18:42 ET by balboaNo one placed it "off limits" until conservative pundits started emphasizing it on purpose to try and associate Obama with negative connotations.
Oh, you mean like pundits
March 26, 2008 - 21:10 ET by motherbeltOh, you mean like pundits saying that the Republicans were going to run "Willie Horton-type" ads against Obama?
Of course there is NO ad of that type that they could use, they just wanted to get the two names in conjuction because the knew Willie Horton hurt Dukakis, and they knew it would be understood as a "dirty trick' and would ring of racism....
Oh, you mean like pundits
March 26, 2008 - 21:50 ET by balboaOh, you mean like pundits saying that the Republicans were going to run "Willie Horton-type" ads against Obama?
Um, no?
No, bal. That would be
March 26, 2008 - 15:56 ET by fitzfongNo, bal. That would be Spitzer.
And like every other Oliver
March 26, 2008 - 13:35 ET by fitzfongAnd like every other Oliver Stone conspiracy fest, he'll overuse that grainy flashback cinematography to somehow link Bush to Stone's getting sent to Vietnam.
fitzfong
March 26, 2008 - 13:46 ET by GOPFOX"And like every other Oliver Stone conspiracy fest, he'll overuse that grainy flashback cinematography to somehow link Bush to Stone's getting sent to Vietnam."
HAHA!!! Well played sir!
It's ideological porn
March 26, 2008 - 13:48 ET by greenfairieLike porn, there really isn't any point to these BDS/anti-war flicks except to make them feel better for about 30 seconds.
Oliver Stone is an idiot.
March 26, 2008 - 13:56 ET by Gary P JacksonOliver Stone is an idiot. Nixon was almost unwatchable, and while JFK was well done, cinema wise, it was absolutely full of inaccuracies, such as Oswald was a terrible shot, when indeed he was a crack shot.
This should be nothing more than a steaming pile. Brolin is a horrible actor. I am sad to see Banks sign on to this, as she is a decent actress, who I've always liked. I guess it could be worse though, Stone could have picked an unattractive woman, so there's that! Of course we have no idea how bad the make up will be!
This will end up being a straight to DVD fiasco. If he wasn't such a fervent anti-American, he would wait several years down the road, and maybe find an audience, but trying to do this against a sitting President is nothing but a recipe for failure.
Most Americans DO NOT hate the country, or George Bush.
I am sad to see Banks sign
March 26, 2008 - 15:06 ET by NewsbusterbrownI am sad to see Banks sign on to this, as she is a decent actress,
She's also incredibly attractive, too. One of my favorites...at least for now.
Very attractive. She played
March 26, 2008 - 18:08 ET by Gary P JacksonVery attractive. She played JD's girlfriend on "Scrubs". Always came off as a nice person. The publicity shot that she was in, for this loser movie, hit her from the right angle, and frankly, it's not hard to squint and imagine her as Laura Bush.
Still doesn't mean the movie won't suck though!
Beth from "40 Year-old
March 26, 2008 - 18:16 ET by Roger the ShrubberBeth from "40 Year-old Virgin". Awesome stuff.
Gary,
March 26, 2008 - 16:52 ET by MassConserv"Brolin is a horrible actor." Actually, I thought he was pretty good in "Goonies". Though that's about the only thing I've seen him in.
;-)
Not seen him in
March 26, 2008 - 18:11 ET by Gary P JacksonNot seen him in that.
Brolin was on a really horrible TV show a few seasons back where he played a Senator. Horrible.
He was in Quentin Tarantino's movie "Planet Death" it was perfect. He didn't make it!
Well, in all honesty...
March 27, 2008 - 10:41 ET by MassConservnone of the actors in Goonies were exactly Oscar contenders. Not that they needed to be.
Just a mindless 80's "action/adventure" flick. Though enjoyable mindlessness, IMO.
Elizabeth Banks is a hottie,
March 26, 2008 - 17:24 ET by SmartypantsElizabeth Banks is a hottie, who I thought had more sense than this. I guess a paycheck is a paycheck though.
There is nothing that
March 26, 2008 - 16:45 ET by jdhawkThere is nothing that pisses me off more than the film that Stone made of Vietnam. In it, our American soldiers are depicted as drug addled, blood thirsty, madmen. While there were those that that vignette may accurately depict, it was my experience that the majority were sent to do a job and did it well in extremely adverse circumstances. And, when they got home they were largely jerred, spat on and cursed for their trouble.
My two sons were too young to see the film when it came out, but saw it later as teenagers. They asked me all kinds of questions about it and the war (this really hadn't come up until then). I set them straight, but it wasn't until they asked some of my fellow soldiers that had also fought there that they saw it in a different light. Later they were to read some of the histories that were written about the period and have since seen it as one of the many proxy wars between America and the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War.
It would be terrific if we had conservative directors in Hollyweird. I guess that is an oxymoron. If we did, I would like a film made of the story of how our defeatocrat Congress of the time sold out the South Vietnamese and how millions, in the region, were slaughter as a result. I guess that will never get made. Woudn't that be appropriate fare just before the upcoming elections!
The problem with the
March 26, 2008 - 17:30 ET by SmartypantsThe problem with the political left, be it in films, tv or other media, is that they use endless dogma and stereotypes to depict the military and anything conservative in general. Liberals are almost universally prejudicial against anyone or anything that does not fit their world, even as they accuse conservatives of being bigots. Modern liberal orthodoxy is based upon bigotry; it ceases to exist without this bias. Conservative orthodoxy is based upon the premise that we are all equal.
Smartypants... I
March 26, 2008 - 17:36 ET by Clear thinkerSmartypants...
I wholeheartedly agree!
I almost have never heard a conservative make racist/bigoted/sexist/etc remarks, but is constantly brought up by lefties. Daily life has proven this to be true in my case, but suspect others see the same as I do.
"Abstain from McCain"
Clear, I've lost count of
March 26, 2008 - 21:05 ET by SmartypantsClear, I've lost count of the times I've heard a left winger pontificating somewhere, spewing some form of hate (to varying degrees). At a minimum, it is usually based in hopelessness. The problem is that most of these people do not have the perspective to see themselves and their positions as they really are. They think that because they "care," it absolves them of any wrongdoing. This is why the Reverand Wright's of the world feel they can say whatever they want, whenever they want without accountability. It is also why their buddies defy any sense of rational thought in trying to defend the indefensible. There is no defense of Wright that makes sense, and no defense of Obama for listening to him for 20 years. Yet, look how many in the media have tried to do just that.
millions, in the region, were slaughter as a result
March 27, 2008 - 12:00 ET by CarlosSClosest you'll come is "The Killing Fields" It was released about 12-15 years after the fact. Can't think of any other films that depicted the horror of our bugging out of the region
Dramatic License?
March 26, 2008 - 23:11 ET by Agrarian-DecentralistMurray warns us not to expect "a reality-based portrayal" from Stone. Okay. I won't look for any more reality than I expected---or got---from Cyrus Nowrasteh in "The Path to 9/11."