W.

Oliver Stone is famously known for his period pieces of American history (World Trade Center, Platoon), specifically events surrounding American presidents such as JFK or Nixon. In W. he explores the life of George W. Bush, beginning at his freshman year at Yale all the way to the end of his presidency. The movie holds a few contradictions with history that I will outline, but that aside, I found it to be a surprising portrayal of the man who, at one time held the lowest approval rating in presidential history. Surprising because, all controversy aside, the film shows sympathy towards George Jr. and one could say lets him off the hook to easily.

The film surrounds the complex Bush had with satisfying his father, George Sr. who was also president. It continuously brings up the issues he had with his older brother being the one his father was proud of and perhaps suggests in the end that it was this complex that caused him to proceed and insist on pushing the Iraq war (because George Sr. pulled out of the Gulf War in what W. thought was too early). The film implicitly suggests that the only way W. could make his father proud was to do what his father could not.

It seems outlandish to say, but the film even suggests that it was simply because of W's wish to please his father and be better than his brother Jeb that he became governor of Texas and even President. Outlandish because of what the film accurately reveals Bush to be; an immature, lazy rebel with a free ride because of the prestige of his family name. Bush quits the multiple opportunities that were handed to him though his family and somehow finds a way to find his own niche in the world. He becomes owner of the Texas Rangers with the help of investors that his family knows. As the eyes of his father cause him to doubt his place in the world, his life in politics begin.

Josh Brolin plays Bush and his performance can only be described as mystifying. He proves that he studied Bush's walk, mannerisms and even the piggish way he eats. He shows a rude and egotistical man who shows his human side through his insecurities. Brolin watched hours of Bush clips and phoned random hotels in Texas to get the accent down while studying for the role. It is interesting to note that Christian Bale was initially cast to be Bush but he backed out at the last minute. Personally I don't see how Bale would have pulled it off being so young, but he hasn't ceased to amazine before. Regardless I think Brolin was meant to be. The cast is stacked (Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheyney, Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush, James Cromwell as George Sr.). Thandie Newton's performance as Condeleeza Rice was hard for me to put a finger on. I couldn't figure out if it was a horrible job or she was going for something. As everyone else in the film was acting like they've done their homework, I couldn't figure out why she stuck out as if she hadn't done any homework at all. I came to realize that in the film, Rice is portrayed as a sinister sidekick who punches in not alot of lines, but the right ones to swing Bush her way. The other characters are overbearing and obvious in how they convince Bush to go into Iraq (Cheyney with oil, others to get reelected) but Rice seems to chirp her way into his head by convincing him that there were nuclear weopons in Iraq, without actually saying so. Everyone but Colin Powell is the villan in the boardroom, who speaks from his heart, but in the end sides with the majority and addresses the UN against his will in favor of invasion.

As Bush adresses congress to convince them Iraq is the right move, he is reading a teleprompter where every word is finely written by a team of speechwriters. During breaks in the speech the teleprompter woudl read "applause" and at the end of the speech the teleprompter reads "massive applause" as if to suggest that every aspect of convincing the room, and the country was intensely orchestrated according to the team's exact intention.

The theme of God is overarching throughout the film. Between every big event in W's life there is always consultation with his priest or after every big meeting in the White House they always bow in prayer. Overarching it seems because it suggests that every decision Bush made was justified by his belief in God. He states to his priest in the film that he doesn't even want to run for president but God is asking him to. Again when Rice askes him what his father thinks of invading Iraq he says he doesn't care about his father, only his higher father. Bush was criticized for creating or pushing a theocracy in his presidency and meshing church with state in his politics, these examples are the manifestation of those criticisms.

The choice of soundtrack in the film is carefully crafted. As he addresses congress in regards to invading Iraq the famous happy song plays, "It's wonderful world" in ironic fashion. There is a folk song that tells the story of Robin hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor that plays a couple different times in the film as he plans the Iraq invasion. Perhaps this is to say that Bush thinks he is a good guy doing it through criminal means, stealing from the powerful and giving back to the people in Iraq. Or its just meant to be funny calling Bush Robin Hood as a hero is something he surely thought he was, but was not. In the film as you watch pay special attention to other soundtrack choices as they are also interesting.

Historically in the film there are a few discrepancies. During the fraternity hazing scene, a person asked if Bush was legacy, Bush says yes and says his father and grandfather, etc were all delta kappa's. This is not true, his grandfather Prescott was in Zeta Psi. Only Bush Sr. and Jr. were in Delta Kappa Epsilon. It was mentioned in the film that Laura Bush had voted for LBJ. Johnson ran for president only in 1964, on the day that Laura had attained the age of 18. Before the 1972 election the minimum voting age was 21, so she could not have voted before 1968. At several points, real life quotes from George W. Bush are used in very different contexts. For example, "Rarely is the question asked 'Is our children learning?'" is shown being said during his Texas Gubernatorial run, but was actually said in January 2000.

There is one dream sequence that continues to run throughout the film. Bush states that his dream job would be in baseball, but his father tells him he isn't good at it. The dream is Bush continuing to catch fly balls in center field. After each monumental moment in Bush's life he catches a fly ball. However, after it shows the failure of his presidency in finding out that there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq after all, the movie ends with the crack of a baseball and Bush getting ready to catch a ball but it never comes down as he lowers his glove he looks confused followed by the credits. This sums up his presidency and maybe his life, looking up for something big to happen amongst his rise to power, but unfortunately power doesn't always come with success. The fact that the movie ends with this scene further makes the viewer feel sympathy for a man that could have been misunderstood. The famous incident of Bush choking on a pretzel while watching a football game takes place in the film but is given an ambiance that actually makes you concerned instead of something worth mocking or used as a giant joke to the media and variety TV programs that month. In regards to this baseball dream sequence, I'm curious to hear what you think it means.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 59% rating

Zoom In Analysis will DISAGREE with this rating because, even though it is not necessarily an important film about an important figure, it attempts to prove a unique portrayal of a man we view so typically as. I would go slightly higher and give it a 6.5/10

Again, I wouldn't say it is an important film to watch. Nor would I say that it's a crucial piece of media for someone studying his life or presidency. However, what does stand out is how the film takes events that the world is familiar with and makes us wonder, as we watch the film and think, "how did this guy, and that happen to that country?" How the hell did this happen? It is an astonishing film that makes you realize how ridiculous it was that the reigns of America were under such an insecure, incompetant man.

Miracle at St. Anna

Miracle at St. Anna follows four black soldiers of the all-black 92nd Infantry Division who get trapped near a small Tuscan village on the Gothic Line during the Italian Campaign of World War II after one of them risks his life to save an Italian boy.

In my last review of Milk, I discussed a historic movie with an agenda. In Milk, the true story was placed in defense to current events as a political statement with honorable intent. In Miracle at St. Anna, Spike Lee presents his agenda in defense to the lack of portrayal of Blacks in World War II films. Unfortunately, though it may be a fact that there are no representations of Blacks in war films, and there are indeed many untold stories of their heroism, this portrayal of their sacrifice plays it to shame. Clint Eastwood made two films which juxtaposed both sides of the same WWII story in Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Spike Lee publicly criticized Eastwood for not having a single African American in both films, even though they were a very real and important part of the war. Eastwood never released a response, and rightfully so. It was not only a shameful way to plug his own movie, but Spike Lee in this fashion pushed in what he thought was relevant to a story that didn't involve or even contain any blacks within it. It would be like criticizing Spike Lee for not having any whites good at basketball in He got Game. Seems racist doesn't it? It is an important step in stopping racism to stop bringing attention to the fact that there is racism when it is negligible. Personally I think this was an attention-seeking move by Lee in order to plug his own movie.

The movie, by the way is a horrid representation of what Lee was going for. Todd Gilchrist made a great point by revealing that "By choosing for his definitive portrait a tale based on a fictional novel rather than an actual true story, Lee has undermined his own efforts to properly depict the wartime experience for WWII-era blacks." Jules Brenner says, "There are endearing moments but we're in a Spike Lee world where it's okay to interject his "black vs. the privileged white-man" lecture time and again to the detriment of the film."

The movie seems like an appropriate piece for prime time made for TV that should have premiered on BET.

If Lee truly wanted to represent and honor the Buffalo Soldiers of WWII, why did he use a work of fiction to manifest true events in history? The film came under controversy as Wikipedia states:

Protests were scheduled for the film's Italian premiere in Viareggio, Italy, by unspecified organizations resulting from the plot line of a partisan collaborating with the Nazis. This runs directly counter to the accepted Italian version of events, which is that the slaughter was not a reprisal but an unprovoked act of brutality and that the hunt for partisans was a pretext. Giovanni Cipollini, deputy head of Anpi, said the film was a “false reconstruction” and a “travesty of history”. However, Lee unrepentant, stated “I am not apologizing.” He told Italians there was “a lot about your history you have yet to come to grips with. This film is our interpretation, and I stand behind it." McBride, the novel's author, stated: "As a black American, I understand what it’s like for someone to tell your history...unfortunately, the history of World War Two here in Italy is ours as well, and this was the best I could do...it is, after all, a work of fiction.”

Spike Lee, although he has made pieces of cinema that reveal the African American perspective in flawless forms both fiction (Do the right thing) and has successful represented African American history as well (Malcolm X), this film is by far one of Lee's greatest shortcomings next to Ray Allen's acting in He Got Game. Sean Gandert points out why, perhaps the movie seems like a conflict of interest "The combination of Lee's concerns for his characters' depictions with Disney's concerns for mass-market appeal ends up pleasing no one." The film seems about an hour too long and forgive me as a movie critic, but i fast forwarded a chunk in the middle, don't blame me though I"m no Roeper, I'm a common viewer telling you exactly what you would have done. Peter Rainer says of the film's length "Clocking in at 160 minutes, this interminable movie comes across like a rough cut. Perhaps Lee believed its length would give it gravitas. The opposite is true."

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 34% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

I was happy to see after watching the film that people agreed with me. I thought for a second that I was being racist by not liking the film, however many shared the same sentiments with me that it was an overbearing piece of fiction attempting to portray the realities of war. Although I am a fan of Derek Luke, and he does a great job delivering his role, the story itself is long, dry and uneventful. I immediately went to look at many parts of the film that didn't seem to make sense. Ask ten people who've seen this movie what the title's "miracle" is referring to, and you'll get a couple of different guesses and a whole lot of blank stares and shrugs. The ending is definitely going for tears, but I couldn't help but laugh. Do not see this film.

Milk

The 2008 film Milk explores the last ten years of Harvey Milk's life, the first openly gay man to win an election in a major political office in the United States. Walking into this movie, I was excited to review it as a typical Hollywood film where anything about being gay automatically gets Oscar nods and is critically acclaimed as a classic film pushing and transcending boundaries. As it turns out, after seeing the film I didn't find this at all, though it may push boundaries for some, it is a true story and one that brings exposure to important issues. The movie is filled with inspiring quotes that can be applied to many mediums, not just the fight for gay civil rights. The movie shows the opposition to the fight for gay rights from the political, religious and most bigoted perspectives. Though it spoke with a clear agenda aiming towards glorifying Harvey Milk, its obvious placement in theateres after proposition 8 and not considering the other sides credibility in perspective, I found it to be a wonderful film in regards to an average person creating exceptional circumstances.

Harvey Milk: All men are created equal. No matter how hard you try, you can never erase those words.

The film's roles gave opportunities for high caliber actors to shine their true potential as Emile Hirsch, James Franco and Sean Penn made noise with their roles as homosexuals, Josh Brolin played an amazing jealous politician who was trying to do what he thought was right, until it drove him so mad that he shot the mayor and Milk.

Milk's presence in political office came with charisma and presence as he used his influence to not only be a voice for gays but senior citizens and the poor. In the movie, the portrayal of the religious right is perhaps a bit extreme and makes each person in opposition to Milk in even the slightest seems extreme, however the film will turn (even they can stomach to watch a couple dude on dude make out scenes) the most extreme bigot into a more tolerant person I would hope as it illustrates the inhumane circumstances a homophobic America has put the gay population through over decades of abuse. Before his death, Milk was quoted as saying, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let the bullet destroy every closet door." His fight for proposition 6 in California succeeded that no openly gay teacher could be fired for their sexuality.

Harvey Milk: If it were true that children emulate their teachers, we'd have a lot more nuns running around.

After his assasination Dan White (Josh Brolin) went on trial and was given a minimal sentance even for shooting two politicians at work including the mayor. The jury was biased towards White and it is no wonder he got off so easy for having too much sugar in his diet. Wikipeda states "Milk's and Moscone's murders and White's trial changed city politics and the California legal system. In 1980 San Francisco ended district supervisor elections, fearing that a Board of Supervisors so divisive would be harmful to the city, and that they had been a factor in the assassinations. A grassroots neighborhood effort to restore district elections in the mid-1990s proved successful, and the city returned to neighborhood representatives in 2000. As a result of Dan White's trial, California voters changed the law to reduce the likelihood of acquittals of accused who knew what they were doing but claimed their capacity was impaired. Diminished capacity was abolished as a defense to a charge, but courts allowed evidence of it when deciding whether to incarcerate, commit, or otherwise punish a convicted defendant. The "Twinkie defense" has entered American mythology, popularly described as a case where a murderer escapes justice because he binged on junk food, simplifying White's lack of political savvy, his relationships with George Moscone and Harvey Milk, and what San Francisco Chronicle columnist Herb Caen described as pandemic police "dislike of homosexuals". Dan White served a little more than five years for the double murder of Moscone and Milk. On October 22, 1985, a year and a half after his release from prison, White was found dead in a running car in his ex-wife's garage. He was 39 years old. His defense attorney told reporters that he had been despondent over the loss of his family, and the situation he had caused, adding "This was a sick man."

After hearing of the easy sentance the gay community was furious and a surge of people from the Castro District walked again to City Hall, chanting "Avenge Harvey Milk" and "He got away with murder".Pandemonium rapidly escalated as rocks were hurled at the front doors of the building. Milk's friends and aides tried to stop the destruction, but the mob of more than 3,000 ignored them and lit police cars on fire. They shoved a burning newspaper dispenser through the broken doors of City Hall, then cheered as the flames grew. One of the rioters responded to a reporter's question about why they were destroying parts of the city: "Just tell people that we ate too many Twinkies. That's why this is happening." The chief of police ordered the police not to retaliate, but to hold their ground. The White Night riots, as they became known, lasted several hours.

Milk was included in the "Time 100 Heroes and Icons of the 20th Century" as "a symbol of what gays can accomplish and the dangers they face in doing so". Despite his antics and publicity stunts, "none understood how his public role could affect private lives better than Milk ... [he] knew that the root cause of the gay predicament was invisibility"

Sean Penn is a revelation as Milk. He not only has a remarkable resemblance to the real man but his energy drives the story. Something I really enjoyed about the film's acting is it revealed the many sides to homosexuality. The gays in the film were not stereotypical and some were true to life just like every day people. James Franco for example is very much like he speaks in real life, wheras Penn and Hirsch resemble different manifestations in themselves. Overall the film is worth seeing, Van Sant (director) has a powerful story to tell, and he tells it with craft, as it was written.

CONSENSUS:

Rotten Tomatoes give this move a 93% rating

Zoom In Analysis will AGREE with this rating

In conclusion, I'd like to switch it up a bit and write a personal piece in response to a movie that begs such controversial questions and in emulation of Harvey Milk, I'd like to be a voice within my own community.
Why someone can still be religious and support gay civil rights:
The mormon document "The family: A proclamation to the World" states blatantly that each child is entitled to a mother and a father. Personally I beleive that I would rather have a child be adopted into any family with a loving parent than be an orphan, whether the "mother" and "father" roles are male and female, as long as they love eachother and show love to their child I feel that that is a power that is special either way. Seeing The plan of god is freedom to choose/free agency, the whole reason (the church believes) that we are here is to have a freedom of choice. I don't think personally in all honesty that being homosexual is the right thing, but I do believe that if you do think it is right then you should have the free agency to choose and the rights that go along with it. It’s obviously a human rights issue; we are beyond the times when we can ignore it as immoral. It’s not about political ideology or proving you are accepting and liberal, it is about believing that people should have the right to act as people. There is a theory that if we allow homosexuals their right, who is to say a man can’t marry a horse or pedophilia shouldn’t have its demands heard? First of all, to compare the two in the same breath is arrogant and secondly the percentage of the population that actually believes that this is okay is a dot on a very large map. The day when pedophiles and advocates of bestiality want their voice heard and it is actually getting recognized is when I will admit we have definitely stepped in the wrong direction.

The church is under a lot of heat because of proposition 8 in California. It funded a third of the campaign to get it passed. There are protesters outside of temples and even persecuting people when they go into church on Sunday. I have a lot to say about this. There are so many elements of irony and paradox in the way the gay community is handling the situation. first of all I should mention that not all Mormons were along side with the church, many put signs up to the contradictory view on their lawn because they believe the same as me...does this mean we are unfaithful or bad Mormons or even thinking of leaving the church?...I don’t think so, the ultimate doctrine of the church is that god will look into your heart. And in my heart I feel I’m right.

Secondly, the protesters decide to pick on our church, which makes sense, but the other 2/3rds of the funding came from African American churches, Baptists and Catholics. When interviewed, an African American said that he denies the gay community the right to compare their struggle with that of the blacks in the civil war because it’s totally different and what he called immoral. He also criticized them for being contradictory because they all solicit a vote for Obama and because they are gay push attitudes of acceptance for the blacks as well, however not one protester has come to a black Baptist church or any black church because he said they are scared to be seen as racist. I just thought it was kind of funny that hundreds of protesters have been outside Mormon buildings but fail to recognize all the other sects.

Finally I have my main point as to why if I was in California I may have not voted for prop 8 despite my beliefs: It was the plan of democrats and the gay community that soon, since gay marriage was legal bylaw any church that did not allow gay marriage would therefore not be allowed to practice marriage at all. This is outrageous, if the whole principle for gay marriage is based on rights, then why deny a hetero couple the right to marry the way they want or a church to act in the way they wish. It’s almost a revenge wish and quite frankly the criticism of if there were only gay people the human race would cease to exist: doing something like this actually gives credit to that notion. To me, this is completely ironic and hypocritical. If the world ever becomes this liberal I think it’s gone downhill. Religion isn’t a bad thing, the world definitely has blinders on the great things religion has created within people despite the views of Islamic fundamentalism and political theocracies (bush).

The solution: give both sides complete civil rights and take nothing away. Give the homosexual community all the civil rights of a marriage. A loved one or a partner should be able to visit someone in the hospital when they are ill, without this civil right they aren’t considered family and therefore are denied aspects that a married couple would. Simply give them all the civil rights that a married couple would and then don’t deny rights to the other side. When blacks or women got civil liberties, nothing was taken away from other races
of gender.

The bottom line is: I find that there are many like me. Liberal views and the church can still mix, my faith is secure with my liberal ideology: I feel non-discriminate even though I do believe that being homosexual is not the right thing to do, or rather the natural order of things meant to happen (which does not contradict with what the church believes), outside of the church I can still practice my civil rights (which are separate) to be accepting of how people want to practice their free agency. When issues like this come up in church, I defend my view and it is not discriminated or mocked, it’s accepted. There are people in the church who are bigoted, and even racist. But there are people like this everywhere. The point is there are people in the church that are very liberal minded as well and we keep practicing our faith because it brings me closer to that pure heart spirit that I believe ultimately matters. I think almost all churches can help someone achieve this, but for me personally this is the best church to help me do just that. To be frank, I will go as far as to equivocate the view of many people on homosexuality and homophobia to the extremist racist views of just a few decades ago, our children or grandchildren will be ashamed of the way society has treated gays just as I am ashamed of how society has treated blacks and aboriginals.