Yet another week that promises to be chock full of politics is upon us. But this week is different… because this week ends on an opening. That’s right, Oliver Stone’s much-hyped film W. that comically chronicles George W. Bush’s rise and fall, launches this Friday.
From the movie’s official Web site, the synopsis reads: “Whether you love him or hate him, there is no question that George W. Bush is one of the most controversial public figures in recent memory. In an unprecedented undertaking, Oliver Stone is bringing the life of our 43rd President to the big screen as only he can. W. takes viewers through Bush’s eventful life–his struggles and triumphs, how he found both his wife and his faith, and of course the critical days leading up to Bush’s decision to invade Iraq.”
Yes, I’m intending on seeing the film and, yes, I’m well aware that a movie “based on a true story” may not include the entire story (or may not get the story entirely right). But I want to ask you, my fellow marketers, your thoughts:
Do you predict the movie will soar, or sink? Is the film a brilliant move on Oliver Stone’s part… or is the film debuting at a time when an already politically overloaded nation is worn-out on all things “W.”? And let’s not forget how citizens–regardless of political persuasions–are still reeling from the economic chaos and thusly watching their disposable dollars more than ever (with entertainment being one of the first items cut in a times of concern).
According to Oliver Stone, “I want a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world? It’s like Frank Capra territory on one hand, but I’ll also cover the demons in his private life, his bouts with his dad and his conversion to Christianity, which explains a lot of where he is coming from. It includes his belief that God personally chose him to be president of the United States, and his coming into his own with the stunning, preemptive attack on Iraq. It will contain surprises for Bush supporters and his detractors.”
Obviously the box-office will be the ultimate barometer of the movie’s success. But I thought it would be fun for us to predict how well releasing a movie on a President–who is, in fact, still the President at the time of its release–will fare.
One of my predictions? If Josh Brolin, the lead actor portraying George W. Bush, is as remarkable in his acting as he is in his makeup, I’m betting he’ll land an Oscar nomination (I find the resemblance uncanny).
We’ll soon see if our predictions play out…in the meantime, here’s the two-minute trailer for your to enjoy. (And for a NYT article on the movie and Stone, with an audio interview, just go here)
Well, in all fairness, Oliver Stone does play fast and loose with the facts as anyone who has seen JFK, Nixon, etc., should probably know.
On the other hand, I suspect, that like much of Stone’s work, there will be grains of truth and insight to be found in W. There just won’t be too many grains of truth to step on his main goals: Make George W. look like an ass and sell a lot of movie tickets.
I suspect the movie will do pretty well and I intend to see it, though I am in no particular hurry to run down to the theatre.
@Neil: I am wondering if the White House will offer any official statement about the validity of the film’s content (if it already has I’ve just not seen the statement).
Part of me feels the film will do really well; but the other part wonders if the nation is just way too worn-out on both politics (with the election) and on content focused on Prez Bush.
Wow liberal movie director makes movie designed to poke fun at conservative President. This will likely lead to Rush Limbaugh’s next book telling the ‘true story’ of Obama’s life and upbringing.
I think anyone that’s read all the political ‘talk’ on Twitter recently can see that this kind of crap is the last thing we need right now. But for some reason people keep making it, and we keep buying it.
CK, you wondered if the White House might issue any statement about the film. If I were the communications director for Bush (heaven forbid) I’d totally ignore the film. By issuing any sort of statement, you call attention to the film and you give it some added credibiliity or significance just because you’ve responded to it.
I plan to see the film and I’m sure I’ll enjoy it. But it probably won’t change many minds — those who think Bush has done a great job will continue to do so, and those who think otherwise will still think otherwise.
I heard an interview with Oliver Stone on NPR a few days ago, and he said he hoped he might influence a few votes by having the film come out just before election day.
@mack: the box-office numbers will tell the true tale if people buy it. I’m honestly unsure how well it will do. Part of me says it will do gangbusters, the other part, like I said in my comment above, wonders if consumers are too overloaded on politics and Bush right now.
@David: Let me know when you’re going to see it, maybe we can catch it together since you’re in NYC (and you’re my pal).
Yes, if I were the Bush Administration, I would ignore the film. Or they could have some surrogates, not directly connected to the administration, say something about Stone’s track record on playing fast and loose with the facts and having a known political bias.
In fact, though I have not seen it, I think the movie is supposed is meant to be a sort of comedy. Like much comedy there will be grains of insight to be found.
That said, you cannot distill a person’s life into two hours especially if you despise the person you are portraying as Oliver Stone despises George W. Bush. I do not think any reasonable person disputes that Oliver Stone hates George W. Bush.
I do not like George W and did not vote for him. Hence, I would not presume to tell his life story.
That said, I am truly perplexed by the idea that we have to like our candidates. Many people voted for W because he seemed just like them and a guy they’d like to have a beer with. While they thought of Gore and Kerry as elitest. The same thing with this Palin thing, some people like her because she seems just like them.
My response: who cares if you’d like to have a beer with your presidential candidate? If I need heart surgery I do not want to hear you betcha I am gonna do this heart surgery from the gut and I am just like you. I could care less if I would like to have a beer with the heart surgeon. Sorry, I want a new surgeon because you are too elite!
Same with politics. Yes, we need very smart people in high office and who gives a flying fuck if we feel comfortable having a beer with them? I’d prefer a president and vice president who does not have to pretend that he or she is average or, worse, actually is average or (God forbid) below average.
I was going to comment but I’m laughing too hard entertaining the notion of David Reich being Bush’s communications director…!!!
Ann, he would have loved the job. Why? Because he would have been able to write a tell all book after his tenure as Bush’s Press Secretary.
Alas, someone beat him to that idea:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Happened-Washingtons-Culture-Deception/dp/1586485563/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223929332&sr=1-1
Pop Quiz:
1. Can you ’short’ a movie?
2. Does Oliver Stone make impartial, historically accurate films?
3. Outside of “The Kingdom” — a film where ‘good guys’ beat ‘bad guys’ — can anyone name a movie aimed at denigrating the president that made money?
Pencils down. If you answered ‘no’ to all three, good for you. Too bad about the first question, though, because if you could short a film, this would be a good one.
Stephen, It probably has drugs, booze, sex, the party life, family tension, comedy, drama, a bizarre rise to power, and war. You really think it will flop?
You might be right but I would not be so quick to short it…
Stone called his film “Shakespearean.” Was he having delusions of grandeur? No idea. I don’t plan to watch it.
But even if it is true… being about an unpopular, still living politician is bad enough, but in the current cultural climate, is it even possible for “Shakespearean” to fly?
I predict bomb. Unless ACORN starts buying bogus movie tickets for Mickey Mouse.
To be fair, I assume he called it Shakespearean as in “Shakespearean tragedy” sense not that he Stone has equal talent.
Your presumption here is that Stone has been less than fair in the timing and probably the content of the film and you are absolutely correct.
That says little, though, about its box office success. You may be right that this film will flop. To quote Shakespeare, maybe this will be “all sound and fury signifying nothing.”
But what evidence do you have, other than you personally won’t see the film, that it will flop?
You may be right and we will find out soon enough…
@Cam: I agree with @Neil that he calls it Shakesperean due to the tragedy.
And yep, we’ll find out how ready (or completely weary) the public is to see this film very shortly. So far it’s had a lotta hype–let’s see if that translates into box-office bucks.
“But what evidence do you have, other than you personally won’t see the film, that it will flop?”
I’ve not gone through the motions of collecting evidence. I predict I could if it were worth my while, but it’s not. As you say, we’ll find out soon enough, so why bother?
What I said was just a hunch based on the topic, the political and popular intellectual climate of the nation, the director, actors, etc.
Tell me Cam, what is the topic of the film, *really*? Think real hard on that one because it is not what you might think.
What is the political and popular intellectual climate of the nation?
You may not like the directors and actors but that does not mean they are not good at what they do. Or maybe that is what you are saying: they lack talent?
“Or maybe that is what you are saying: they lack talent”
No. I think they have lots of talent. I admire the heck out of anyone so productive. Not just Stone and (less so, but Brolin appears to play Bush credibly) the actors, but also the writers and production crews behind the scenes that make films happen.
They just lack a track record of box-office success. They don’t have big-name appeal (other than Stone, but his appeal is more on controversy than a craving for his craft. People know his game now, though, so the shock value was lost before it started filming), and unlike Spiderman, Batman, etc., the main character (Bush) doesn’t have box office appeal, either.
It’s not quite historical, not quite entertaining (in the same sense that any tragedy is not “entertaining”).
And people would rather be entertained than to be led around by the nose about what Stone thinks they should think about Bush or his politics.
The movie’s prospects also suffer because, no matter how they end it, there can be no punch line — no closure — because the subject is still living.
Personally, I enjoyed watching a few of OS’s movies. Not sure I’d have the patience to sit through most of them again, though.
“Tell me Cam, what is the topic of the film, *really*? Think real hard on that one because it is not what you might think.”
Topic or intended audience?
This movie will likely be a big hit with diehard dyed in the wool liberals that hate Bush. I’m not sure the rest of the country will care enough to shell out $15 to see it, but we’ll know soon enough.
Folks, here’s a movie review from the NYT (I cited an interview in the post but not the review): http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/movies/17ston.html
Are movies at theatres really $15 these days? Wow. In that case, I surprised most movies do well at the box office.
I rarely go to theatres to theatres these days, mostly Netflix or my local video rental store. That is, unless I think the big screen will add something to the film — if the sound is important or something. Not that this is primarely a war movie but I think war movies are more powerful on the big screen. For example, I went to see both “Saving Private Ryan” and “Black Hawk Down” at the theatre as both the big screen and the big sound made a difference.
I might go see “W” at matinee during the week or something. I definitely won’t go on opening night. I want to form my own a opinion and I expect opening night at most theatres will be a festival atmosphere with jeers, boos, and laughs on cue.
Neil
Folks: these are “estimated” box-office numbers (ACTUAL numbers can’t be released until Monday, obviously). From the AP (the link is: http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/19/boxoffice.ap/index.html )
“Movie-goers elected a “W,” but it was Mark Wahlberg, not George W. Bush. Wahlberg’s action flick “Max Payne” debuted with $18 million to outdo Oliver Stone’s film biography of George W. Bush, according to studio estimates Sunday.
Stone’s “W.” actually ran fourth, opening with $10.6 million to finish behind the family comedy “Beverly Hills Chihuahua” (No. 2 with $11.2 million) and the chick flick “The Secret Life of Bees” (No. 3 with $11.1 million)”
“Stone’s ‘W.’ actually ran fourth,”
That’s respectable. Can’t wait to see next week’s numbers.
Yes, that is respectable and I hear, though I have not seen the film, is that Stone is actually somewhat sympathetic to Bush.
That’s in contrast to JFK, which was flat-out kooky conspiracy theory stuff and completely unfair to LBJ. Even though Johnson was not the most sympathetic figure, the film went to far: basically accusing him of a Coup d’état against JFK. The reason: so Johnson could escalate Vietnam. Kooky stuff.
Nixon. Jeesh. It is hard to defend Nixon but is super hard to defend Stone’s film about him.
Folks: 2nd week running — according to estimates, it looks as though “W.” dropped from 4th to 7th place this week….seems audiences are hankering for more “High School Musical” and “Saw” than political dramedies.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/
Wow. For ROI, though, you can’t beat “Fireproof.”