Oliver Stone Planning George W. Bush Biopic
Posted by Rodneyon 21. 01. 2008in News Chat
It looks like Oliver Stone is working on a film that will try and show us what it’s like to walk in George W’s boots! We get the peculiar news from our friends at ropeofsilicon:
Variety reports Stone is shopping around a script by Jon Kilik about a film focusing on the life and presidency of George W. Bush with Josh Brolin attached to star.Stone describes the pic saying, “It’s a behind-the-scenes approach, similar to ‘Nixon,’ to give a sense of what it’s like to be in his skin… But if ‘Nixon’ was a symphony, this is more like a chamber piece, and not as dark in tone. People have turned my political ideas into a cliche, but that is superficial. I’m a dramatist who is interested in people, and I have empathy for Bush as a human being, much the same as I did for Castro, Nixon, Jim Morrison, Jim Garrison and Alexander the Great.”
The article at Variety, though, says Stone isn’t out to make an anti-Bush polemic. His goal is to use seminal events in Bush’s life to explain how he came to power, using a structure comparable to The Queen.
This is hilarious! Oliver Stone is an outspoken critic of Bush and we will see if he is able to try and keep an objective eye on this one. I for one hope not, I want to see him use all his boiling feelings to bring us a one sided defamatory masterpiece! It looks like Stone is aware of his own feelings (and of people’s knowledge of them) however, so I am guessing that this film will not be a witch hunt.
George W. is a horrible president and a piss poor statesman. But I will fully admit – he is a likable dude. This is a classic case of a guy in the wrong job causing a huge mess. If George W. Bush owned a Cadillac lot – he would be the greatest salesman that ever lived. If he swaggered up to you in cowboy boots and a powder blue suit, slapped ya on the shoulder and said “It is my dream that every man, woman and child on earth be treated to the luxury of a Cadillac” you would buy a car then and there.
The life of W is an interesting one and I think it will make for a fantastic film. Some will argue that Stone will be biased on this one… of course he will, and I think all of us will be hard pressed to find someone that isn’t polarized one way or another in their opinion of this man. Stone has done fantastic biopics in the past, has proven himself as an artist and has selected a fantastic leading man in Brolin. I think Stone is as good a man as you can get for the job and certainly cannot wait to se how this one goes down.
This post was written by :
Rodney who has written 8899 posts on The Movie Blog
visit author's website | Contact the Author
I am so over W… Be gone already.
It must have been a hard script to write. How much mangling of the english language can a writer put up with?
Any word on when they are planning on releasing this?
Any story on Bush will be defamatory masterpiece. Why? Outside of the speech that Bush delivered after 9-11, I cannot think of one positive rememberence of his entire presidency. The guy has no victories to champion.
It’s his (Bush’s) own damn fault.
I guess for people outside of the states this movie might be an eye opening good thing? Personally, living in the states makes me with RonSalon on this one…I’ve had all the 7 1/4 years of Bush I can take. I don’t want to sit through a 2-3 hour Oliver Stone movie based on his clusterfuck of a presidency.
I read an interesting article about this via this link http://www.towleroad.com/2008/01/oliver-stone-el.html
thanks for the hookup ron salon!
The casting of Josh Brolin is a bit suspect…seeing how his father James played the late Ronald Reagan when RR was Prez in that extremely bias TV film a number of years ago.
Also…I take strong objection to some of the int’l friends:
First of all, let’s get a few things off the cuff here. President Bush is not the greatest speaker to ever grace the office. But don’t cheap shot the speech writers….or the people who will work on the film’s script (should it get made) when the strike is over. This comment implies that, regardless of what light they cast Bush in, the script (or the writers) won’t be good.
What part of President Bush Stone’s film will be about? War on terror? If Bin Laden is caught or killed, I think it will be on the next President’s watch, regardless of party.
Bush and his policy towards tobacco companies? The contreversy over the recent dismissal of various US Attoneys?
Second,
I’d much rather see a bio-pic on Condoleezza Rice and/or Colin Powell. Heck, even Donald Rumsfeld….
It’s WAY to early for a biopic. They need to wait at least 20 years for some perspective. How can you judge now? And by then we’ll know wheter it was worth liberating 50 million Iraq’s and planting the seeds of freedom where only tyranny once dwelled.
What person in their right mind will fund any Oliver Stone picture at this point? His movies tank.
imbecilefield.
I know I’m in the minority here, but how can you seriously say that George W. has no victories other than the speech after 9/11? That’s taking a pretty narrow view of history, my friend. First of all, he pledged more federal funds to research existing lines of stem cells than any President before him (as a matter of fact, he was the 1st President to allow the use of federal funds for this research). He pledged the largest amount for AIDS relief in Africa that had ever been pledged. He oversaw the most impressive economic turnaround in the history of the world after the recession the country went into after 9/11, and he did it in what is often referred to as impossible time. He appointed two staunch conservatives to the Supreme Court, and engineered an end to the nearly 20 year old stalemate to getting federal judges appointed to the bench (I understand liberals don’t like the judges he appointed, but he still got them approved, which is a victory for him). He oversaw two incredibly planned and executed military invasions (I’m talking about the initial war invasions, not the rebuilding). He oversaw the longest period of economic growth in nearly 50 years.
Now, I realize that not everyone is going to see these things as good or positive for the country, but whether you like them or not, they are victories for President Bush, and this is just a small list of them. Because of the war in Iraq and how terrible it had become, many people forget about the other things he has done. I can promise that history will see President Bush in a different light than we do today. Oliver Stone would be incredibly wise to stick to an unbiased view.
As long as it’s better than that piece of crap he did about The Doors.
@ Matthew
Yeah, Bush has done great things for the american economy, the results of which you can witness right now. Thanks again for that weak dollar Mister Bush, it certainly made my vacation to the US much more affordable, as I have the pleasure to get paid in delicious Euros.
George W. Bush is a product of extremely intelligent, yet morally totally blank minds such as Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.
Mainly Rove, who was looking for a figure to put in front of the public while himself making the politics behind closed doors.
He saw George as the perfect opportunity and transformed that alcoholic simple-minded fellow, who happens to have a valuable name and contacts, into the religious, tough-talking yet likeable guy he needed.
Then he turned to the powerful evangelicals, realizing that their influence was big and their potential yet underused in politics. When the presidency was won/stolen, he gave George to the Neo-Cons and basically said: “Now do as you please.” And of course 911 helped realizing a lot of the things that those guys had in mind.
I believe that George W. Bush is probably not very involved in A LOT of policy-making in the executive branch. That becomes apparent when you for example watch the brilliant documentary NO END IN SIGHT, where you see that a lot of those catastrophic decisions made in Iraq never saw the Oval Office and were made without the president ever over-seeing them. Cheney is the real leader of America, he just needs someone for the cameras due to his own total lack of charisma.
As for Rove’s motifs, he was probably just driven by some Macavailian-ambition, thinking: “I can make anybody president. I’m that smart!” And he is. Yet he probably should have thought about not just if he could do it, but if he should.
Also the most important point the long term effects of Bush’s presidency are still unknown for at least a better part of 10 or so years.
Making a movie now about him, right now, would be somewhat pointless…
And considering that Oliver Stone’s judgment can de sumarized in “The US overacted to 9/11″(yes he did say that) no good can actually come out of this.
There’s so much blind hatred and derangement over Bush(a man who gets blamed over things he has no power over and has nothing to do with them) it’s nearly impossible to be an objective and Stone will never be one.
Even his World Trade Center movie has a very sinister edge to it.
Mozzerino~
I don’t know how much you have an understanding of the way the government works, and I’m not insinuating that you have none, but so far, you have failed to back up anything that you have said. Ok, Karl Rove helped get Bush in office…who cares? There has never been a President elected to office in the last 100 years who was not directly influenced by a campaign and policy manager who helped shape the message. Karl Rove did not set agendas, George Bush did. Anyone who disagrees with that does not have any examples to point to, and has obviously not read any of the books put out by former and current Bush Administration officials detailing the inner workings of the Bush White House. You could start with a book called “Heroic Conservatism” which was wrote by a former speech writer, someone who had very little to do with policy and influence, but was able to bear witness to it all.
Now, as to Iraq policy, George W. Bush did what every President does in a time of military conflict, give over-arching guidance on how the conduct of the war is supposed to take place and allow the DOD and the military commanders on the field take over and execute. Therefore, most decisions that were made in Iraq did not see the desk of the President, because that’s not how it works, nor is that how it is supposed to work. That is why there is a Department and Secretary of Defense. That is why there are the Joint Chiefs, etc. Military orders are made by military personnel, through guidance of the Secretary of Defense and the DOD. I do not argue that the Iraq mission was incredibly failed, but the main reason for that was Rumsfeld, not Bush.
As for your insightful comments about the economy, which you gave no evidence or proof for, do not even come close to describing the current crisis. George W. Bush does not have control over lending and spending practices of banks and other lending institutions. The President is not vested with that authority. The current economic crisis is mainly caused by sub-prime lending which has led to an extreme amount of lending to people who cannot make their mortgage payments. Because banks and lending institutions have so freely given out so much credit, which caused many to become over-extended and unable to make minimum payments, there is an economic crisis looming. This is not due to any type of Executive policy regarding the economy (except maybe Clinton signing the act allowing targeted credit, which targets those who are already in debt for giving them more debt, also called predatory lending).
That’s just a quick synopsis of what’s going on right now. I challenge you to come up with specific examples of Karl Rove setting policy, or Dick Cheney telling W what to do. You won’t find any. While your post was interesting, it did what most attack pieces of Bush do, which is leave out facts and depend on insults about how he is stupid.
Carlos~
You could not be more correct!
@Matthew
You’re response to the constant Bush bashing on this site was brilliant. You need to start a blog!
@ Matthew
Maybe I should have been more clear about the fact that this is of course my view on things and the way I interpret them. Do I have a video of Rove and Cheney ordering George around and laughing sinisterly looking at a map of the world? Of course not, but on the other hand do you have any proof of George’s decisive powers behind the scenes? I guess not and frankly I don’t believe some loyal speech writer, who happened to make a quick buck on some book he wrote. There are countless other book titles that tell a different story.
As for Iraq, you said it was Rumsfeld’s fault, not Bush’s. That’s bullshit. In the end the responsibility lies with the president and Bush should have seen that Donnie fucks up big time and throw the old, deluded man out. He didn’t and that seems curious, doesn’t it?
When Rumsfeld was finally let go it was way too late and any idiot could have seen that. And what about Alberto Gonzalez? That moron what a laughing stock out of himself and therefore the administration, which was stupid enough to appoint him in the first place. Oh wait, but maybe Gonzalez did remember some stuff but decided to play dumb, because someone said to him: “You keep your mouth shut or you’ll regret it!” Wonder who that might be.
As for the economy, what more proof do you need? The dollar is at an all time low and the stock-market is in a catastrophic state.
Again, you say that’s not the administration’s fault, well fair enough. What about the budget then? Clinton left office with a plus in the budget, while Bush will leave office with a giant budget deficit and for what? An unnecessary war that went horribly wrong.
As for Rove and Cheney and Rumsfeld and so on:
You don’t wonder why these guys hardly give any interviews? Rumsfeld has not been seen in public since he left office and the times Cheney was kind enough to answer questions I could count on one hand. They know that they would have to answer some tough questions and the probably don’t wanna answer them.
Is that how you want your government to work? Secretive and condescending to the public while on the other hand constantly trying to spy on you (illegally I might add)?
First of all, the wiretapping is not illegal, and that has been decided by the US Supreme Court of all bodies, and I think they know a little something about legality. Congress did what Congress is allowed to do and change the way the administration goes about getting these wiretaps, but they still continue to this day, and they aren’t listening to you. I have absolutely no problem with my government listening to my phone call if it’s being made from this country to someone in another country with known terrorist ties. I’m fine with that. I remember the day over 3,000 people died and I hope the government does what it can to prevent things like that from happening again.
Of course the responsibility for the failed war is Bush’s. But that doesn’t mean he made the huge mistakes that caused it to happen. The scope of the federal government is so big, thanks to democrats, that the President cannot be involved in day to day decisions of how the war is executed. And in all honesty, as someone who has been there before, I don’t want him, or any President to be that involved. Commanders on the ground have enough information to make the critical decisions, and it should be left to them. It just so happens that in this case, they made some bad ones.
I understand those on the left hated Alberto Gonzales, and towards the end some on the right did as well. However, nothing he did involving the firing of the lawyers was illegal, unethical, or out of the ordinary. If you do a little research, you will find that all administrations do that. It’s just that in this case, it happened in a time that others saw as an opportunity to bring embarrassment on the administration. Alberto Gonzales did a very good job being the AG before this case, and he carried out Bush’s wishes time and time again. He ended the practice of allowing US Attorney’s to prosecute only members of the opposite political party in corruption investigations, and demanded that some republicans be prosecuted as well. That, by the way, was a practice put in place by Clinton. He also oversaw a tremendous transformation of the intelligence organizations, that under him, began to see the point in working together and sharing information. As for him being told to keep his mouth shut, that’s a pretty fantastic story. It has all the ingredients of a liberal talking point: corruption, threats, deceit, cover-up, perjury (oh wait, perjury isn’t bad, as long as you are lying about having sex). However, it lacks one thing every hater of this administration is missing: facts. I’m sure it will make for a great made-for-tv movie in the future, but there are no facts to back it up. If you notice, there is nothing I have posted about that was not proven by facts or witnessed first hand by some. Your refusal to take someone’s word about something does not mean it’s not true. And making a story up out of nothing does not make it true either.
Finally, it’s true that Clinton left the office with a balanced budget. You might want to look at how he did that. First, he slashed in an extreme manner defense spending, which included intelligence services that could have prevented Sept. 11, and therefore the Iraq war. Second, he probably saved a few thousand dollars when he refused to give the go-ahead on a bombing campaign that would have killed Bin Laden because he was too busy golfing. Don’t believe it? Do some research. He refused to give the order, over the phone, when the planes were reaching their targets because he had not been involved in the planning stages and couldn’t be briefed in an unsecured location like a golf club. So out of spite to his military commanders, he refused, and we all know what happened next. Thanks Bill!!! Oh, and let’s not forget that Bush is overseeing a war, and whether you like the war or not, it is always going to put the government off budget. Clinton wouldn’t know about that, because he decided to place American troops under UN Control and then had them bomb some vitamin factories in order to distract the country from the Lewinsky affair. While Clinton might not have left the country in a worse shape than he received it (although I would argue that point), he certainly did nothing to improve it. Bush has had to oversee the war effort, and whether you like the war or not, it’s going to cost money. That is always going to put the government over budget. Plus, he did the smart thing and pledged, like I said above, billions in AIDS relief to Africa, re-organized and improved intelligence operations (which costs a lot), and for some reason agreed to allow the federal government to bail out Louisiana after it couldn’t take care of itself. And don’t tell me that’s what the FED is for, Florida gets hit with hurricanes all the time and then NEVER ask for federal money.
All in all, I understand everyone’s frustration with the administration. I might be a republican (if you couldn’t figure that out yet), but I still have my issues with Bush and the things he has done. But to make the statement that his administration is a failed one is ludacris and simply not supported by the facts. I don’t mind people pointing out his mistakes, but if you do that, you have to admit his successes.
Oh, and Brian, thanks, but I barely have time to make these posts on here, much less doing it over a larger subject base with more to do. I appreciate the compliment though.
I’m really enjoying the intelligent discussion and I try to keep an open mind in most matters. But regarding this description posted by Mozzerino:
“Do I have a video of Rove and Cheney ordering George around and laughing sinisterly looking at a map of the world?”
That was one of the funniest visuals I’ve had in a long time. Thanks for throwing something lighthearted and amusing into an otherwise serious topic! :)
Oliver Stone produces garbages. All the worst to you Ollie.
GWB has kept our country safe, and has many accomplishments as POTUS.
Oliver,
look me up you chicken shit bastard. I will punch you in the fucking face.
Sean Flaherty
Tacoma WA
There may have been a time when Oliver Stone was at least creative, (I don’t know for sure) but I think he has reached the stage of petty, self-centered, bitter old man.
Ollie, that is curable. Admitting it is the first step.
Matthew, good posts but you left out something. The fact that Bush, as president, does NOT have control over the lending practices and guidelines of banks and other such institutions is the very reason the economy is in the tank. The dems in congress had to arrange a disaster to panic congress into assuming control of those things so that when they do get a pres in there they will own us all. The IRS can no longer support them in the style to which they have become accustomed. They need a new pot to dip into.
Need I say more than Oliver Stone, Mr. Remake History. Secondly, why would any intelligent person need a director to understand current events. As if Oliver Stone has done anything outstanding for his country.
Did he raise money for 9/11 victims, do the proceeds go into a fund to prevent terrorism or is he a typical hypster set out for his own pockets. It’s pretty sad to see the downfall of a director desperate for recognition and opprobrium by the Hollywood community. Stone the follower leaderless succumbing to the mainstream beliefs.
Wow…maybe the general American people are as stupid as the Democrats and the media pundits seem to think!!!
There really ARE people out there that believe this economy situation is ALL Bush’s fault! There really ARE people out there that believe the media on TV every night when they tell us the “vote’ is already over.
Thats what the liberals are counting on and that is what the people who produced this movie are counting on…the same “slumbering’ people that originally decided OJ Simpson was innocent, will now race to this movie to watch a “roasting” of a man that, yes, made a mistake or two in his two terms, but that did NOT create the screwed up world we are living in now.
Wake up people. You are smarter than this.
Adrienne