Interview

Launch Mediaplayer »

For many years, Oliver Stone tried to make a movie of The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand's epic novel about the arrogant ur-capitalist and architect Howard Roark. Stone's version would have reinvented Roark as a visionary designer of public buildings-maybe a guy like Fidel Castro or Hugo Chávez, two gifted egoists Stone has been known to pop a Fresca with. That's interesting company for a born Republican and decorated Vietnam volunteer, though maybe not for the man who gave us Wall Street (1987) and Gordon Gekko, or who wrote Brian De Palma's Scarface (1983).
Stone's new film, W., is a biopic of George W. Bush that the director has scrambled to finance, shoot, edit, and release before the 2008 election. Surprising only to people unfamiliar with his work, Stone paints a politically excoriating but emotionally sympathetic portrait of our 43rd president. Josh Brolin stars in the title role, alongside Elizabeth Banks (Laura Bush), Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell), Richard Dreyfuss (Dick Cheney), Thandie Newton (Condoleezza Rice), Scott Glenn (Donald Rumsfeld), and James Cromwell (George H. W. Bush). W. is Stone's third crack at presidents or their legacies, following JFK (1991) and Nixon (1995). What could he possibly be thinking?

DAVITT SIGERSON: When I was first thinking about talking to you, lines from that Bob Dylan song "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)" came to mind: "If my thought-dreams could be seen/They'd probably put my head in a guillotine." Do you ever feel like you're running in a different time zone than the rest of the world?

OLIVER STONE: Why do you ask that question? Because I'm making a movie on George W. Bush?

DS: Well, no . . . We'll get to that. But I have my own theories about why you freak people out so much.

OS: Oh, really? This is a great way to start. I like it. At least you're honest. I would love to know your theory, if you can give me the short and sweet of it. It could help me frame my own life, I suppose.

DS: Well, I think this: You're an impressive formalist, and you can be as grand or as vulgar as the material requires-for example, with the use of television and different film stocks in your movies. I also think that your films follow function because it seems you are, above all, a rabid moralist who is intent on saying what you've got to say. And I think that really freaks people out. People prefer a tasteful formalist to a rabid moralist. Even though you have elements of both in your work, I think that you . . . Well, I think you know what I think: that saying what you've got to say is the most important thing for you in your movies.

OS: Interesting. Very well said. I mean, I suppose in our culture-in our lifetime-we've always enjoyed people who tell it straight. We like our presidents, our comedians, and our actors to do that . . . It's funny. You say that people prefer a tasteful formalism-as opposed to an oppressive formalism-but I do feel very strongly that form follows function. I really do. I've said repeatedly in many interviews over the years, "Look, the styles in my films have changed, and each film has a function at the time at which it was made." But I don't know that the point has really ever gotten across yet. I have skipped from style to style from film to film, and I love doing that because it's given me the ability to free myself from the past. Perhaps one of the worst feelings that I can have is the feeling that I'm locked in, like a prisoner of myself, which is something we all feel at some point in our lives. So part of making those stylistic jumps is just to free myself up-to get away from the old or the old Oliver Stone. When I make a new movie, I always get stuck with, "That's not an Oliver Stone film." But I don't know what to do about that except just move on. That's why I was really happy to do W. It's a chance to shrug it all off again. That's the way I approached making the movie, and I know it's one of the issues with its relationship to the other two presidential films I've made. But I'm leading you now-

DS: That's all right. That's good. I actually feel a lot of parallels between W. and Scarface.

OS: That's interesting. Why is that?

DS: Well, let me disclose that I've seen a couple of versions of the script for W., and one of the things that struck me is that it seems you set off to make a film that is in many ways a very sympathetic understanding of George W. Bush. It's certainly not a positive portrayal, but it definitely feels like you set out to get inside of him as a character and to understand him on his own terms-which is, I think, exactly what you did with Tony Montana in Scarface.

OS: That's correct. It's what I tried to do with Nixon, too.

DS: W. has that autumnal quality that Nixon had, but I also feel there are ways in which you and W. . . . For all the things that you and George W. Bush don't have in common as people, there are some things that you do.

OS: Well, we both went to Yale, class of '68. And although W. came from a much more powerful family, both of our families did have aspirations for us. I didn't have the size of the family that he did-I don't have brothers and sisters or a lot of cousins. We didn't have boarders at our house or anything like that. But I did go to Yale and was raised Republican-Eisenhower Republican or Rockefeller Republican, I like saying. My dad was staunchly pro-Vietnam, and, you know, I believed everything I read in the media and saw on television in the '50s and '60s. I really did. And I watched the war in Vietnam unfold on that basis, without irony. I went as a volunteer.

DS: You requested combat duty.

OS: I requested infantry-I didn't want to get fucked out of that. I didn't want to end up in Germany or in South Korea or anything. And I got what I wanted. I got it in spades.

DS: Well, there's a big difference between you and George W. Bush. You skipped out of Yale, and W. skipped out of Vietnam.

OS: I know. There are a lot of differences at that point-the fork in the road is huge. And I wish that George W. Bush had gone to Vietnam, because he would have seen history in a different light. He would've experienced it in a different light because I don't think he understood the nature of war.

DS: But you do get us to like George W. Bush. There's a scene, for example, where he drives up drunk after getting into Harvard Business School-

OS: Well, it goes beyond him being a kid. I, quite frankly, find him to be likable in the way that he's a goofball president-it's like having a bit of a goofball in the White House. I mean, people don't like Richard Nixon. I found that out when Nixon came out-people just did not like the movie because they did not like the man. I think the movie is very well made, but there's a thing about Nixon that turned people off: a dark side that Cheney also has. But in George W. Bush, there's no evidence of a dark side that people see, and I think that's fascinating about him. So people, of course, like him and trust him. As [Karl] Rove said, He's a man you can have a beer with. And there's an ineffable charm in that. Even my mother, who is a diehard-you know, she's a Republican-and she's seen what's happened these last eight years, but she's rigid about that. She said, "Don't make a movie, Oliver, where you demean Bush or you hurt Bush." And I was trying not to do that. I was trying to be, you know, fair is a tough word . . .

DS: Well, when it comes to hurting his cause, W. has already got the job covered, hasn't he?

OS: Yes, George W. Bush speaks for himself. I mean, the fact that we haven't had to make up words is the beauty of it. With Nixon, we had to reach inside and find some of that material-Nixon was very much a man behind closed doors. With Bush, you don't have to reach very far. He's put a lot of great, colorful stuff out there.

DS: I wanted to ask about that: One of the things about the movie that I found myself really enjoying is that the material is so familiar. I felt it was sort of like going to a Rolling Stones concert. They're going to play "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" and "Brown Sugar," but you don't know when. There is a reference that W. makes to his poppy, George H. W. Bush, throwing up in Japan . . .

OS: Yeah, there's a lot of that going on, a lot of inside stuff.

DS: But the way you handled weaving in some element of the Rumsfeld "unknown unknowns" briefing from 2002 about evidence that Iraq was supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction . . . It makes up for the, perhaps, overfamiliarity of the story by providing all these little moments.