Roger L. Simon: Oliver Disappoints with Bush Film

It would normally be good news for conspiracy theorists that Oliver Stone is working on a George W. Bush biopic to appear before Bush leaves office (don't hold your breath). But unfortunately the JFK director doesn't seem to be swinging for his usual fences here, no Johnson behind the Kennedy assassination whispers or anything close: "Stone has said that the film, which will focus on the life and presidency of Bush, won't be an anti-Bush polemic, but, as he told Daily Variety, 'a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?'"

How disappointing. Well, at least he's calling Bush an "alcoholic bum" - not very PC, but we'll let that go. It has some attitude of a Twelve Step sort. Look, we should admire Oliver for getting financing for his convoluted political biopics (Nixon?). He's kind of a business genius.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I dunno, Roger. I kind of remember that he said JFK would be a balanced presentation, too. The question is, does he think the explanation involves Skull&Bones, the Trilateral Commission, Prescott Bush's ties to the Nazis and, of course, the Joooos?

Too bad, too, because "how did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?" would be an interesting story. Writing a decent biography sounds like *way* too much work, but if someone did it, I'd buy it.

Gee, I dunno, how did Stone go from being a mentally ill druggie drop out to being a successful mentally ill Hollywood big shot?

Another fevered biographical "re-imagining" along the lines of "Nixon" and "The Doors" -- "a fair, true portrait of the man" as seen through the eyes of a paranoid cokehead.

I'd rather spend those two hours of my life learning to riverdance or something equally annoying.

Oliver Stone's "Nixon" was doomed to lose money. It was 212 minutes long! Common sense dictates that few people were going to endure such a long experience. Did the investors really give their approval to this extremely high risk undertaking? Were they even consulted? Are they so wealthy that their accountants said it didn't matter if they lost money on this particular project?

An entire generation of filmgoers has grown up since Oliver Stone made a good movie. They barely care who George W. Bush is, let alone Oliver Stone.

There are lots of right leaning traders on wall street who quote Gordon Gekko everyday. Bush can now be the Tony Montana or Gordon Gekko for a new generation.

Well, Stone may be a "mentally ill druggie drop out," but he's a "mentally ill druggie drop out" who went and fought for his country. Shame we can't say the same for the president. Where was W during the Tet offensive?

And come to think of it-- if a person joins the army, wins a bronze star, gets two purple hearts, graduates from NYU, and wins several acadamy awards.... um, how do you characterize that person as a "drop out"?

Words actually have meaning-- that's their purpose. I'm not an Oliver Stone apologist, nor do I think he is without faults-- but I take umbrage at people who sling sloppy and meaningless insults at people. If you're going to insult someone, try and actually write a decent sentence.

To answer your question, when the Tet Offensive began, W was finishing his last year at Yale. At the time it ended, he was training as a fighter pilot.

And why do you take umbrage at people who sling sloppy and meaningless insults at people?

"...try and actually write a decent sentence" should be, 'try to actually write a decent sentence'.

Wow, deja vue all over again. I could swear Mr. Stone said something similar to "...a fair, true portrait of the man," during the filming of Alexander. Then proceeded to put his Alexander, the munchkin sized Colin Farrell with a Courtney Love do, on Bucephalus and engage in a joust with an elephant. But I suppose that such fabrications are OK because they advance the story line.

Since when is it accepted that "history" ("biography" could be substituted here) is just as a movie (any movie) protrait it to be? The public won't know an event or events happening unless they see it on the silverscreen (or TV screen)?

As for "biography" or "autobiography", nowadays you have to know the author's political leaning in advance in order to decide if it is worth any s*%#&.

Shame we can't say the same for the president. Where was W during the Tet offensive?

Why is that a shame or do you plan on voting for the only veteran this year? Have you voted for the veteran every year?

Perhaps Bush was hanging out with Obama and the Clintons during Tet, though we all know where Obama and the Clintons were at the time, don't we?

If i could fly an F-102 Delta Dart all-weather high-altitude interceptor known as the 'widowmaker' for its dangerous personality, i'd feel like i could laugh at the president's service, too.

March 29, 2008: Oliver Disappoints with Bush Film - Where's the Paranoia?

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post