Oliver Stone can’t wait to do George Bush version of Nixon
posted at 4:36 pm on April 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Normally, historians wait for a generation or so to determine a statesman’s place in history, and biographers wait at least until the end of their term to tell the story. Oliver Stone, being neither historian nor biographer, will rush a George Bush movie to the theaters before the end of this year. ABC has an advance look at the script, and it seems about as fair and balanced as his look at Richard Nixon:
The movie, which starts filming this month with “No Country for Old Men” actor Josh Brolin playing Bush, paints a humanistic portrait of the president along with plenty of embarrassing anecdotes from his life story, judging by a copy of an early screenplay obtained by ABCNEWS.com.
The film’s script captures purported notorious moments in Bush’s life:
- Rumors that his father pulled strings to get him into Harvard Business School.
- His arrest during college for tearing down the goalposts at a football game.
- Almost getting into a fistfight with his father when he comes home drunk one night in the 1970s.
- His vow to quit drinking when he wakes up with a wicked hangover soon after his 40th birthday.
Reading through the rest of the “spoilers” in the report is tiresome business. Stone has essentially trolled through sensationalist reporting on the Bush family and strung together a sequence of alleged events. He hopes to build a narrative for W, the current title of the film, in a Kitty Kelley manner. It sounds very much like his Nixon, which got roundly denounced by everyone who ever knew Nixon, including sharp denials from his family on most of the supposed events depicted.
It might worry the Bushes, except for the non-entity Stone has become. He did an excellent job on World Trade Center, eschewing his normal self-centered directorial style for a much more straightforward and affecting approach in telling the true story of two 9/11 survivors and the people who rescued them. Everything else he’s done since JFK has descended into paranoia and unintentional self-parody. Any Given Sunday, his opus on the NFL, was incomprehensible and ridiculous, wasting Al Pacino, Dennis Quaid, and a normally brilliant cast on a retelling of every sports cliche this side of North Dallas Forty.
And don’t even get me started on Alexander … (h/t: HA reader Newton)
Now he wants to rush a biopic to market, just like every other direct-to-video or Lifetime Channel director. The description provided by ABC puts W squarely in line for a WB Movie of the Week slot by the time the next President gets inaugurated into office. I’ll take a non-Sunday pass.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
If there is a more worthless waste of skin on this earth than Oliver Stone, I can’t think of him.
Stone isn’t worth the stale urine it would take to douse him if he were in flames.
NoDonkey on April 1, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Troll is the correct term!
upinak on April 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Stopped going to movies six years ago. Ollie doesn’t live here anymore.
mymanpotsandpans on April 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Another box office
hitbomb!Richard Romano on April 1, 2008 at 4:41 PM
If Alexander gives you any clue as to what he will do…
newton on April 1, 2008 at 4:41 PM
Look for Laura Bush pushing drugs in college.
Because, you know, Stone is a serious filmmaker and must evaluate all potential stories.
emailnuevo on April 1, 2008 at 4:43 PM
When is he going to do Clinton?
Connie on April 1, 2008 at 4:44 PM
It should endear him the his mindless democrat enablers.
Right_of_Attila on April 1, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Never. He has a man-crush on him.
Some aspiring young conservative director should do a sensationalistic bio-pic of Stone. How far would the young director get before Stone files an injunction?
Freedom for me, but not for thee!
natesnake on April 1, 2008 at 4:47 PM
Flush some money down the tubes and call it a movie. Same diff.
Akzed on April 1, 2008 at 4:47 PM
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard my dad say Stone was a f-in a-hole.
Domino on April 1, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Hollywood puts out one anti-war/Bush movie after the other and never notices the public at large has little interest in opening up their wallets for their box office flops.
Tis little wonder why people who spend their lives pretending have absolutely no grasp of reality.
fogw on April 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM
And I can’t wait to not see it.
Mike Honcho on April 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM
I bet it will be about as successful as Alexander.
saltydogg14 on April 1, 2008 at 4:52 PM
No doubt whatever refuse is put on the silver screen, it will get two thumbs up, honorable mention at the Emmys, Grammys, Oscars, become an International hit, espcially in Europe,and hey, he may even be nominated for a Nobel Prize!
I sure hope there is a backlash against this fool…….
Seven Percent Solution on April 1, 2008 at 4:54 PM
I can’t wait to NOT go to see this movie…
areseaoh on April 1, 2008 at 4:55 PM
I guess I’m in the minority. I thought Stone’s handling of Nixon (aside from the stupid scene where Sam Waterstone’s character’s eyes turn supernaturally black while he opines evilly) was pretty good. I guess you could largely chalk that up to Anthony Hopkins’ portrayal, which I thought was very sympathetic and not up to the typical “dirty trickster” stereotype that is catered to by all in the liberal establishment.
The fact that he’s rushing this is rather annoying. Even with all of its factual inconsistencies, I found JFK to be a good film, and I know it was a few years in the making. I’d rather see him take his time on this one.
MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 4:56 PM
You’re joking, right?
BTW, the movie is being released early intentionally. Lob accusations against Bush in a movie, while the Democrats are busy tying McCain to Bush.
amerpundit on April 1, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Not a pretty visual.
Thankfully television has ruined my once vivid imagination.
m0nkeyb0y on April 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Dude.
amerpundit on April 1, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I predict that the studios will:
Jump to finance Stone’s “George W Bush version of his ‘Nixon’ film and greenlight tons of money to be at his disposal.
The critics will overwhelmingly praise his film and laud his work as a masterpiece. They’ll declare it a must see – and predict that it will be a bigger hit than Gone With The Wind or Titanic.
The public will avoid this steaming pile of Stone’s excrement and the only place it’s a success is in the art movie houses of New York City, Vermont and the left coast.
And everyone who thought the movie was wonderful and the best thing they’ve seen in their gd’med lives ….. will scratch their heads and wonder why so much of America ‘just doesn’t get it.’
wise_man on April 1, 2008 at 5:01 PM
Yeah, nevermind the important stuff- namely his Presidency. Let’s make a movie that shows him as a college kid acting like a college kid! Genius!
Hollowpoint on April 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Used to be “normally” anyway – these days this crap seems par for the course.
I don’t get it. What is the point? Who goes to see these movies?
WTF is the point of a biopic of a sitting President when we’ve all witnessed his presidency? And when the producer, director, writer, and actors will ALL be operating from very specific contemporary biases?
There is literally no point in discussing a President (or any historical figure for that matter) for at least several decades; a century is better.
Historians work their craft by being untainted by personal perspectives. Nobody can make a movie about events of a few years ago (or this week) and avoid that personal taint.
It’s all so stupid. I ask again: who watches this crap?
Is the History Channel going to start running specials on what happened last Thursday?
If he hurries, maybe he can get this pablum out there before the election.
Professor Blather on April 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Uh-huh.
That’s been my observation for quite some time.
wise_man on April 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I’d be surprised if he didn’t have his own version of a blue dress in his closet.
Hollowpoint on April 1, 2008 at 5:04 PM
We have a winner. Comments over.
MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 5:04 PM
What’s that supposed to mean?
MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 5:05 PM
If he really wants to have an impact on the election, he should channel Mel Gibson and film “Passion of the Obama”
Hollowpoint on April 1, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Obama as Christ? That’s a good idea, Hollowpoint. I wonder what free advertising in the guise of news, or documentary there is going to be from the democrats in the media who are Obama fanboys.
wise_man on April 1, 2008 at 5:11 PM
That’s what I was going to say. I really liked Nixon and even bought a copy. Hitchens gave out stink when it came out because it was too sympathetic. One of Anthony Hopkins’ best performances. Great script, too.
aengus on April 1, 2008 at 5:12 PM
whats worse though, Stone or the idiots that would finance this and employee him?
I’m sure DailyKos was heavily sourced. Imagine if we could do a Clinton movie
jp on April 1, 2008 at 5:12 PM
We’ve already got “Path to 9/11,” jp.
Guess that will have to do.
wise_man on April 1, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Professor Blather on April 1, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Oh come on Sgt Blather, the History Channel is starting to tick me off more and more with the crap they are showing. HC use to be quite educational, but even they have changed history or conclude it should have been this way or that.
pvt up
upinak on April 1, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Gee no information about Bush being related to Nazis and the secret meeting with Cheney about plotting a terrorist attack to allow him to invade countries for oil?
Damn slacker Stone
Defector01 on April 1, 2008 at 5:18 PM
An Islamic propaganda film by the Dhimmi hack that couldn’t keep dry filming Alexander.
Hening on April 1, 2008 at 5:18 PM
wise_man on April 1, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Ahhh have you seen that on DVD yet? If so, hook me up!
upinak on April 1, 2008 at 5:20 PM
That I like you the way you are. Synergy is when we all go under together. Who wants to be common?
Entelechy on April 1, 2008 at 5:20 PM
yeah, but I was thinking a Right-wing hit job based on rumors like his W movie.
imply he had Vince Foster whacked for sleeping with Hillary.
all the other ppl close to him that died.
imply Chelsea is the love child of Hillary and Webb Hubble
the possibilities here are endless. The uproar would probably be worse than Wilders with Fitna.
jp on April 1, 2008 at 5:20 PM
He forgot his involvement in the JFK assassination.
ronsfi on April 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Dude.
Nixon was like watching a bad acid trip.
The casting was awful, too. Casting Paul Sorvino playing Henry Kissinger? That was almost as bad as Keanu Reeves playing Buddha.
Mike Honcho on April 1, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Just because Chris Matthews does Obama…Connie!
Entelechy on April 1, 2008 at 5:22 PM
And I like you for precisely the same reason.
Funny how the conservatives back in the 50’s were talked about as the “conformists”. Now, in our day and age, issues like environmentalism, health care, and freedom of speech and religion have turned the libs into the true “conform or pay” party.
DUDE.
…no words for it…
MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Wouldn’t Stone think that it would be redundant to point out that anything about Bush’s life was wicked?
calbear on April 1, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Does this mean I can release my bio-drama film about Oliver Stone (aptly titled “Stoned”) before he dies? ;-)
cannonball on April 1, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Alternate Oliver Stone bio titles include:
* Any Given Slander
* Natural Born Idiot
* 8 Million Ways to Lie
* Born On the First of April
* Persona Non Veraz
Do I smell a Photoshop contest? ;-)
cannonball on April 1, 2008 at 5:42 PM
This one should go straight to rental.
Buttercup on April 1, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Who’s playing McCain? I’m sure he’ll have a few appearances in this to remind viewers how much alike the two are.
kongzilla on April 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM
You do realize that an early release accomplishes 3 goals simultaneously- 1. Possible electoral impact, 2. Taps into BDS while the strain is virulent, driving the revenue/viewership up from nonexistent to miniscule, and 3. Paints Bush as evil/incompetent/flawed before history has a chance to possibly rehabilitate his image (consider the different perspective of Reagan in 1988 and 2008).
cs89 on April 1, 2008 at 5:55 PM
Comedy Central already beat Stone to it with Lil Bush
Rick on April 1, 2008 at 5:58 PM
It’ll probably be as well known as this.
aengus on April 1, 2008 at 6:03 PM
When will these Hollywood boneheads get it. NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR YOUR JADED OPINIONS.
oakpack on April 1, 2008 at 6:06 PM
LOL, “normally” has never appealed to today’s BDS-infected “historians” much, as evidenced by this tripe from the “dean” of American historians, the late Arthur Schlesinger, who in 2004 compared Bush’s actions in Iraq to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor:
“The second Iraq war fits into Bush the Younger’s strategy of “pre-emption”. There is deliberate confusion here. Preventive war has a bad reputation in Washington. It is not only due to imperial Japan’s preventive strike at the American fleet in Pearl Harbor, but Presidents Truman and Eisenhower explicitly rejected preventive war, and those recommending preventive war against the Soviet Union were generally derided as loonies”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/19/uselections2004.usa14
Del Dolemonte on April 1, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Here’s a really quick & dirty photoshop squeezed between customer calls and a meeting:
click here
cannonball on April 1, 2008 at 6:07 PM
another movie I won’t see.
hollywood is sunk.
so they gave him this one, predicated on stone holding his nose and doing that 911 movie.
we can only hope this one bombs, big.
jimmer on April 1, 2008 at 6:20 PM
After they declare bankruptcy.
aengus on April 1, 2008 at 6:25 PM
Josh Brolin in both roles…
mikeyboss on April 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM
George Orwell wrote against pre-emptive war as well. He called it fascist. This is not a new or anti-American view per se.
aengus on April 1, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Yeah having a pre-emptive war against the Germans and her allies in the 1930’s BAAADDDDDDD.
Again:
1967 – Six Day War
1981 – Osirak Reacto
2007 – Syrian thingie
All pre-emptive attacks designed to prevent something worse that could have possibly happened. Too bad they didn’t do that same thing before the 1973 War.
mjk on April 1, 2008 at 6:47 PM
Hey I’m not saying I’m against pre-emptive wars. Is my name George Orwell? Just pointing out that this view didn’t rise up from the ether in 2003. In any case I don’t think any of your examples count. The Six Day War was being initiated by Egypt, Israel just beat them to the chop. Osirak and the Syrian thingie weren’t wars. If the Germans had been prevented from crossing the Rhine it wouldn’t have been a war.
If anything I think France (yes, really) should bomb the Sudan’s air force on the ground. It would prevent the Sudanese from going on jihad and barreling their way West through Africa. It would make more sense than keeping 3,700 troops in Chad to just sit around and babysit – babysitting (or, if your prefer, peacekeeping) being the EU’s primary foreign policy.
aengus on April 1, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Too bad they didn’t kill Egypt’s Third Army to a man when Sharon had them trapped.
aengus on April 1, 2008 at 7:00 PM
This is just going to be porn for Bush-haters….I just hope they clean up after their finished watching it. LOL!!!
mlong on April 1, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Hello Aengus, how’s the weather on the other side of the pond today?
THE CHOSEN ONE on April 1, 2008 at 7:30 PM
.. and don’t question Stone’s patriotism either.
Shawn92101 on April 1, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Hi. It was very nice today, its getting brighter. Thanks for asking.
aengus on April 1, 2008 at 7:33 PM
The early buzz on the Mirror Universe version of this movie is a lot more encouraging. It’s titled “Bush: Avenger of the Bones,” with the subtitle taken from a famous comment made by a liberated Iraqi citizen after the fall of Saddam. The opening minutes are said to set the stage for 9/11 by showing clips of Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, juxtaposed against images of al-Qaeda gathering strength and planning the World Trade Center attacks. The first scene fades in over a montage of contemporary newspaper clippings, predicting further terrorist attacks on the U.S, economic catastrophe, and probable defeat in the bitter Afghan winter against the battle-hardened Taliban. We get a few private minutes with Bush in the evening of September 12, 2001, right before he gives his historic “We Will Prevail” speech (known by heart to most Mirror Universe schoolchildren around the world.) The rest of the movie is a series of extended flashbacks, showing how Bush’s character was formed by the mistakes and failures of his youth, and how he overcame them through religious faith and Laura’s love. The only way the Mirror Universe version of “Bush” sounds inferior is the casting department. Josh Brolin would have been a great choice, but unfortunately he’s unavailable, since like most Mirror Universe actors, he signed up for a tour of duty in Iraq. Mirror Universe Oliver Stone had to make due with a no-name cast, but I think his audience will make due allowances.
Doctor Zero on April 1, 2008 at 7:52 PM
Did you know that, according to Oliver Stone, JFK really was shot by the man on the grassy knoll?
And the weapon that he used was a smoke bellows?
R. Waher on April 1, 2008 at 8:23 PM
I’m sure the production manager will have an ample supply of Thai sticks for Mr. Stone.
Hummer53 on April 1, 2008 at 8:30 PM
Brian DePalma…or Mark Cuban, take your pick.
SuperCool on April 1, 2008 at 8:56 PM
YAAWWWN. Did I hear a misquito or a gnat?
CynicalOptimist on April 1, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Michael Moore.
MadisonConservative on April 1, 2008 at 9:19 PM
Oliver who?
Zorro on April 1, 2008 at 9:47 PM
It was neither misquito nor gnat… it was, indeed, a bloodsucking flea…
CynicalOptimist on April 1, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Who will want to watch it, though? Not even the left, I suspect, as once he’s gone the won’t give a toss anymore. I can’t imagine they’d want to pay to see more of the man
Reaps on April 1, 2008 at 10:03 PM
You know, I think of that plot from the film The Producers where they try to make money off of a losing film.
CynicalOptimist on April 1, 2008 at 10:05 PM
I didnt scroll all the way through to see if anyone else said this, but the Damus predicts that if this crapper-tank of a movie comes out before the Nov election, it will bomb at the box office and it will hurt the Democrats.
Most Americans may no longer like the President’s job performance, for some valid reasons too. But he’s still the sitting chief of state and he still scores high on personal likeability.
If this movie trashes W while he’s still in office, or makes Laura, GB41 or Babs look like fools, people will rebel against it at the ballot box.
Therefore I say: bring it on, Oli.
Mike D. on April 1, 2008 at 10:09 PM
About 4 years ago in Film School I had taken a class about “Mavrick Film Makers” Stone was one of the directors and while everyone else had 3 weeks Stone had 2, we watched such classics as Platoon, Born on the Fourth of July, The People Vs. Larry Flint, and ofcourse, JRK. To my joy the next year while having a talk with the teacher he came to ask me who he should replace Stone with, coming to the conclusion that his films are god awful dribble.
Theres making a film that shows some dissent towards a topic you know, Stone having been in Nam and then making a skewed version of Platoon. But this Bush drama is based on more hearsay then fact. Its to bad Bush has too much to do, running the free world, then to sue the pants off this no talent crap. If we get lucky maybe Dicky boy will convince him to go out for some Moose hunting, he’ll get to use a bigger gun then last time.
Rbastid on April 1, 2008 at 10:36 PM
Ed, I agree with most of what you said. However, “World Trade Center” was loaded with “world sympathy” views and completely disregarded celebrations in several Muslim countries, including the non-country “Palestine”.
Ignoring the fact that there were significant groups of people celebrating the atrocity of 9/11, IMHO, completely minimized the significance of the event as an act of war on American soil; instead turning the story into a typical “disaster” movie. Such an action ignores the context of the attack and dishonors the innocents who died as a result of it.
But then again, had he thrown in so much as two seconds of celebratory footage showing Muslims partying over the 3,000 deaths, it’s quite likely that he would have received the van Gogh/Wilders treatment.
/sigh
Wanderlust on April 2, 2008 at 7:02 AM
I can’t wait for one of our resident liberals to pull their regular ‘it’s unfair for us to judge this film without seeing it’ crap.
Clue: once you pay to see it, whether in the theater or at home via rental or purchase, the filmmaker doesn’t care what you think of it. They don’t give refunds, and they count your sale as part of the success. Just like in Wargames, the only winning move is not to play.
James on April 2, 2008 at 7:42 AM
Confirmation of why Indiana Jones, Dark Knight, and Prince Caspian will be the only movies I see this year.
But I’m sure that it’ll be shown in limited theaters so that when it’s soundly rejected, they’ll blame it on limited distribution–just like the Jolie Mighty Heart movie. Jerks.
Dubn8tr on April 2, 2008 at 9:26 AM
When did this paranoid moron become the “official chronicler of presidents”? I’ve only seen one Oliver Stone movie that I didn’t walk out on within twenty minutes and that’s World Trade Center. JFK, sucked; Born on the Fourth of July, sucked out loud; Platoon, sucked out loud and squealed; Wall Street, made me want to kill myself. Guy’s a hack.
srhoades on April 2, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Comment pages: