It's Not Personal

Here the Hollywood Reporter's review of W.

From the first paragraph:

Oliver Stone's "W." -- his take on the life and legacy of George W. Bush -- might be the first movie ever to come with footnotes.

Actually, his previous films JFK and Nixon came with footnotes. Of course, what counts are the quality of the sources, not whether you've got any. Garbage out, garbage in.

Reviewer Kirk Honeycutt says what matters in a film about Bush is not the smaller things, but "what led our 43rd President to need a war to prove himself."

I don't know if this is Honeycutt talking, or his take on what Oliver Stone is trying to say, but if this is what the film's about, then it's a false premise. Alas, this is all too often the Hollywood mindset. Because they're far better at showing human interaction than explaining political forces, they've got to personalize a story. This may lead to compelling plots, but also means we get pop psychology in place of political analysis.

Also, this being Hollywood, perhaps Stone (and Honeycutt?) isn't capable of believing there could be any rational, political reason for the invasion of Iraq, then or now. (I'm assuming the war to "prove himself" in the movie is Iraq, not Afghanistan.)

It's this kind of thinking which leads too many astray. Rather than discussing whether the Iraq war was worthwhile (then or now), and what we should do next, we have people chanting Bush Lied People Died.