W.

Before I write this post, I want to make it totally clear that I am a proudly registered Independent. But when I heard that Oliver Stone was making a movie about the infamous Bush presidency, I questioned his motives. I thought it was a little unfair that he was making a movie about a sitting president, and it was going to be released right before the November 4 election. Obvious politics.

However, my boyfriend got this movie from his Netflix queue (if you haven't signed up, do it! It's worth it)and made me watch it with him. I was pleasantly surprised!

While the movie does portray our 43rd President as a spoiled, rich rebel throughout the movie, I was surprised to see how they portrayed him behind the scenes of the invasion of Iraq/search-for-WMDs-that-were-never-really-there.

The movie is told almost all through flashbacks. During the first half of the movie, you feel like just strangling "Junior", as Bush the 41st called him. He is the typical spoiled rich Ivy Leaguer who thinks he can get out of any predicament because of his father's position in politics (at the time, George Bush Sr. was a Congressman). He lives in the shadows of his brother Jeb, and tries to get his father's respect any way he can. Unfortunately, W turns to alcohol and drugs to achieve this.

The movie shows W constantly trying to please his father. It's really kind of heartbreaking. Even after he was elected Governor of Texas, and even when he was running for President for the first time, everything was to prove to his father that he was good enough. I know the movie is somewhat fictional, but I could understand how difficult it might be to be the son of an elite politician.

While all these flashbacks are occuring, the planning of the Iraq war is taking place. As the movie goes on, "Shock & Awe" ensues, Baghdad is overthrown, and the infamous words "Mission Accomplished" are hung on a banner on a naval warship. After this, as we all know, the war literally blew up in his face. In one particular scene, W asks his cabinet where the WMDs are, where the intelligence was from, and if anyone knew this would happen. The answer is tossed from one cabinet official to another, which can pretty much sum up what happened in Iraq. Nobody was accountable, and nobody informed the President, because they didn't think he would understand. He could never really escape that-- his father didn't think he'd amount to anything valuable, and now his administration was falling apart.

The movie is actually very poignant, and offers a deeper perspective of this man who has been the butt of late night jokes for almost a decade. I was very surprised to see such an interpretation by Stone, who I thought would take the character and run with all the gaffes and stupid moments. However, Stone showed that Bush was simply misunderstood ("misunderestimated" is what the poster said). He suggested that the war was not entirely his doing, but the fault of an entire cabinet and the result of a lack of accountability on all parts.

All in all, I thought Stone's portrayal of our 43rd President was a well-executed one; one that did not set out to further damage a reputation, but to show how a man like George W. Bush became President. Watch it: I think you'll respect him a lot more when you do.

W. Trailer

Citizen Kane

A couple of years ago I was watching the American Film Institute's "100 Years...100 Movies" special on TV. I (obviously) love movies, so I wanted to see which movie they would choose as the greatest movie of the 20th century. The big winner was Citizen Kane, an Orson Welles film that was hailed as the greatest work in the history of film. I was intrigued. I just had to watch the #1 movie of the 20th century!

I finally did, and while it was a great movie, I don't necessarily think it was the greatest movie EVER. So sue me.

The movie opens with an eerie "No Trespassing" sign, and the camera takes you on a tour of a massive mansion that seems to be abandoned. An old man, Charles Foster Kane, grabs a snow globe, and utters, "Rosebud". Then he suddenly drops it on the floor, dead. The movie centers around a reporter who is trying to find the meaning of his odd last words.

As far as movie-making goes, Citizen Kane is innovative given the period in which it was made. The movie is told mostly in flashbacks, and the cinematography is great-- the use of shadows and camera angles really elaborates on the characters and their feelings. I had to remind myself that this movie was made in 1941.
Most movies I've seen from this time period are very traditional in the sense that they don't really use shadows to their storymaking advantage, and Welles did this remarkably well with Kane.

Screenwriting was definitely an area that this film excelled in as well. The script was fast-paced and witty, and portrayed the transformation of the young, idealistic Charles Kane to the angry, lonely, power-hungry shell of a man he becomes just beautifully. Herman Mankiewicz did a spectacular job of bringing the audience back and forth through flashbacks--remember, in these days, flashbacks were not commonly used in feature films. More beautifully, though, is how Kane's need for love resonates throughout the movie. He is very flawed, angry, and loses many friends on his quest for power and money, and yet you feel bad for the guy when all is said and done. Beautifully written and beautifully executed by Welles.

Much is to be said about Orson Welle's performance as Charles Kane in this film. He ages over a lifespan in this movie, and he gives a knockout performance scene after scene. He is cocky, lonely, angry, greedy, powerful and miserable. And he is brilliant in this role.

Overall, the movie itself is really an innovative and creative type of filmmaking that I think is still very rare, even in these days of technology.

Milestone in film? Definitely. But best movie ever?? Not quite.

AFI's "100 years...100 Movies"- Citizen Kane