by Chris Neumer
The core idea behind director Michael Hoffman’s surprisingly underrated film Soapdish is that the behind-the-scenes lives of the actors working on a soap opera were far more bizarre, comical and horrendously managed than anything fictional that a group of writers could ever create for the show. It’s funny because it’s true.
I was reminded of this concept this last week when I read an interview with writer/director Oliver Stone." In the Maxim Magazine interview , Stone expressed his surprise and dismay that the American public and powers-that-be are looking at his new film W. (the George W. Bush story) and of the belief that it is a political film. Stone told interviewer Charlie LeDuff, “[W.] is not a political film, but a Shakespearean one.”
As soon as I read the above quote, I started to laugh. If Stone can say this with a straight face (and say this with a straight face to a Pulitzer Prize winning interviewer) he has officially become lost in the abyss that is Hollywood. Can a Hollywood director other than Clint Eastwood really make the statement, “I don’t agree that my films have a liberal bend,”? More to the point, how can Oliver Stone get through that statement with a straight face? How can anyone?
Stone has made a name for himself in the entertainment world as something of a conspiracy theorist and a provocateur. When you look at the films the man has directed, controversy and heated emotions seem to abound everywhere. Consider that in the span of just five years (1986-1991), Stone directed Salvador, Platoon, Wall Street, Talk Radio, Born on the Fourth of July, The Doors and JFK. There’s not a conventionally safe movie in the bunch. Not satisfied with the emotion and media frenzy attached to those projects, Stone went on to direct Natural Born Killers, Nixon, Any Given Sunday, Comandante and World Trade Center. If there is a raw American social nerve exposed, Stone has found it and made a movie about it. From Vietnam to the lifestyle of professional athletes to Fidel Castro to September 11th, Stone has never shied away from confrontation. In certain cases it seems like he’s almost sought it out, ahem, like in JFK where he brought up the possibility that Kennedy’s assassination was planned by then vice-president Lyndon Johnson.
This is the man who is presently confused as to why his new film about the rise to power of our current president is being viewed as a political film that might have several hot button issues surrounding it.
What strikes me as so unusual about this situation is that Stone doesn’t seem to have any inkling why other people might deem W. political or . This is mind-boggling to me, particularly for a man as (otherwise) intelligent as Stone.
Let’s see, in your career, you’ve made two previous films about United States presidents. In the first film, JFK, viewers could interpret the story line to mean that the vice-president planned out the assassination of the president (something that’s out of bounds by Dick Cheney standards). In the second film, Nixon, Stone intimated that Richard Nixon himself was aware of how the Kennedy assassination played out and did nothing about it. With a history like that, how could anyone ever think that a film about a third president, President George W. Bush, might have some politically sensitive elements contained within?
Of course, this brings up the most divisive issue that the American media is facing today: the argument over whether facts can be negative.
Most people would argue that if a vice-presidential candidate believes that dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago and that reported as such, that that is news. Thanks to the rise of political correctness and somewhat biased news organizations (organizations which, for the purposes of this column, I’ll collectively refer to as Fox News), the aforementioned scenario has become slanderous and unfair. The fair way to report that a vice-presidential candidate believes that dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago is to state that and then state why that might be acceptable and why it might not be. It’s up to you, the viewers to decide… even though by all scientific measures available this belief is as wrong as your average episode of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
If the George W. Bush presented in Stone’s W. is an alcoholic who did copious amounts of cocaine in his thirties, lied his way into war in Iraq and spent a fair amount of time playing video games while in his Texas governor’s office, would this be considered the liberal media (and Stone) striking again? Would it be considered a fair portrayal of the man? Would it be considered the truth? Since none of the above information is false, it seems like it would have to be the truth… although I believe fans of Bush (all four of them) and Republicans would have a severe problem with the fact that those truths were presented, period.
But I’m getting away from the topic at hand: Stone’s non-political movie about the most famous politician in the world who happens to “lead” one of the biggest political powers in the world.
Cynical writers like me might pause to wonder whether Stone even believes what he’s saying. Just think about how much press coverage Stone’s remark has gotten W.; this column wouldn’t have been written without Stone going down this usual… unusual path and deeming W. Shakespearian. While on paper, the odds seem better that Stone’s anti-political comment was designed to get his film more press than the other options on the table, this doesn’t take into consideration Stone’s no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is demeanor. If there’s one thing that represents Oliver Stone, it’s a lack of fakeness. Stone is as honest a director as one can find in Hollywood.
So it appears as though Stone does genuinely feel that W. is not a political film. This is bizarre on several levels. I mean, if I’m one of W.’s producers, I have only one reaction to this: anger. It had damn well better be political. There is a large audience out there that would be interested in seeing a new political film by Stone about one of the most off-the-wall world leaders that the planet has seen.** I’m not sure how many people would be interested in seeing a non-political film about Bush. We’ll deal with the issue of how you could make a middle-of-the-road film about one of the most polarizing people in the world later.
For what it’s worth, I’m on the side of W. co-star James Cromwell, who plays George H.W. Bush in the movie. States Cromwell, “Sure [W.] is a political film. It would be horseshit to say it’s not. If this isn’t a political film, then I’m sorry. I’m completely lost.” Me too.
* The laws of journalism dictate that all writers qualify writer/director Oliver Stone as “controversial”, but I am ignoring this here.
