W.

In fear of my life, I admit: I don't hate George Bush.

I went to see W last night. I was expecting a Michael Moore type laugh-a-minute film, but that wasn't it at all.

Overall, I found the movie quite boring; it was pretty much a biopic - but who wants to see a biopic about a man still alive and about events which occurred less than ten years ago? Not me.
Josh Brolin is completely excellent as Bush. Not only has he captured the mannerisms exactly, but he is funny, and quite likeable. In my opinion the film tries to portray the complex relationship between George Bush Sr and Jr, both powerful statesmen (obviously) but also confused in their relationship as father and son. Unfortunately, the portrayal lacks any depth and basically swings around from Sr being the one to blame, to Jr and so on. And I'm not saying I would have wanted more depth - no, no. In fact the father-son moments were, in my opinion, the most boring parts of the film.





Most compelling were the White House scenes, where I could simultaneously enjoy guessing who was supposed to be who and laugh my head off at Thandie Newton's portrayal of Condoleeza Rice. Surely it was a joke performance?? Newton looked like a puppet on a string; a figure straight from Team America! I spent an alarming amount of time cracking up at her imitation of Rice's speaking voice instead of concentrating on why exactly America went to war with Iraq.

And now for the political analysis: I seem to differ from the rest of the world in my views, but I was a supporter of the Iraq war (at least initially). I will admit, I am not too involved, or even interested, in politics, with the exception of my West Wing obsession. But I remember back in 2003 that I believed it was necessary to invade a hostile country if it was certain they had WMDs.

I know it has since been revealed that the intelligence regarding the location of, nay existence of, WMDs was shady to say the least. And obviously I don't support a war based on false evidence. However, according to the film (again, I am unsure of how much of it is actually true) Bush and some of his advisors really did believe that Iraq posed an imminent threat to global security. I have not a single doubt that Bush acted for the correct reasons. It seems that either he was misled or his advisors and their intelligence providers got it wrong. Dramatically wrong.
This does not exonerate Bush. Obviously his administration was in a bad way if they were receiving false intelligence AND believing it. But Bush, as President, cannot have been expected to research the matter himself. He relied upon advice from those highest in their fields. That their advice was wrong, does indeed refelct on Bush, but it should not make him hated by all living beings. I truly believe (and not just because of the film) that he was trying to do the right thing.

I also believe that that alone is not enough. A President should be better than everyone else nd not make such mistakes.

A moment in the film seemed to bring it home to me. At one point, Bush is asking his advisors who is searching for the WMDs in Iraq. They all point at each other, saying the responsibility was passed to someone else. Bush fumes, "Why wasn't I told?" etc etc. But then he shouts out, "Who is in control here?" (or something along those lines) And although noone answers, it is painfully clear that the one who should be in control is Bush himself. That he has lost command of the entire operation.

I thought the ending of W was thought-provoking, and I definitely believe that Oliver Stone has portrayed Bush as decent but flawed. Brolin charms the audience, and although Bush may have choked on a pretzel, he somehow has always charmed me.