NationStates Jolt Archive

Comparing two of Oliver Stone's films, Nixon and W.:

First of all, which did you enjoy more? Did you find them to be counter-parts? I did a tad: Nixon was portrayed as intelligent, unsociable and paranoid, whereas Bush was shown to be simple-minded, affable and naïve. Nixon was trying to surpass a "failure" father, but Bush was trying to fill his father's shoes. Nixon is shown to regularly to be affected by drink (though certainly not drunk), but Bush stopped drinking by the time he was President. Nixon was a tragedy, and W. seemed to be tragicomedy at its saddest, but generally aiming toward humorous results. Did either of the films cause you to feel sympathy toward their subjects, the two most hated Presidents in living memory?

Well, if you walk into the theater with the idea that the films are about:

the two most hated Presidents in living memory

I should hardly think that you're going to feel any sympathy - your mind's already made up. Just an idea.

Well, if you walk into the theater with the idea that the films are about:



I should hardly think that you're going to feel any sympathy - your mind's already made up. Just an idea.

No, I pitied Nixon so much that I have re-examined his presidency. And Bush I felt sorry for, though I still think very little of him.

Unfortunately I have yet to see W. I did like Nixon a great deal; Anthony Hopkins is a fan-bloody-tastic actor and seeing him portray the downward spiral of corruption and well-intentioned villainy was chilling and profound.

Unfortunately I have yet to see W. I did like Nixon a great deal; Anthony Hopkins is a fan-bloody-tastic actor and seeing him portray the downward spiral of corruption and well-intentioned villainy was chilling and profound.

W. is different, naturally, as you might expect from Bush's personality. Nixon is about a man who could have been great, but W. makes no such claims, which detracts from its tragedy and adds to its comedy. Still, the films share counterpoints.

Comparing two of Oliver Stone's films, Nixon and W.:

First of all, which did you enjoy more? Did you find them to be counter-parts? I did a tad: Nixon was portrayed as intelligent, unsociable and paranoid, whereas Bush was shown to be simple-minded, affable and naïve. Nixon was trying to surpass a "failure" father, but Bush was trying to fill his father's shoes. Nixon is shown to regularly to be affected by drink (though certainly not drunk), but Bush stopped drinking by the time he was President. Nixon was a tragedy, and W. seemed to be tragicomedy at its saddest, but generally aiming toward humorous results. Did either of the films cause you to feel sympathy toward their subjects, the two most hated Presidents in living memory?
I found that "W" stuffed his cabinet with Nixon-hangovers, including Cheney, and we got the same paranoid, war mongering, economically and morally bankrupt result.

W. is different, naturally, as you might expect from Bush's personality. Nixon is about a man who could have been great, but W. makes no such claims, which detracts from its tragedy and adds to its comedy. Still, the films share counterpoints.

It's good to hear that W doesn't attempt to portray the title character in the same way as Nixon. It would indeed sadly fail, if for no other reason than history might be willing to redeem Nixon now, but it's way too early for Dubya, and most of us aren't too sure whether it'll ever be a good time for that. That said, I can think of several good things about Nixon's presidency whereas I really can't for Bush's.

However I'm skeptical about how comedic it is. Are there any scenes that intentionally strive for humor? Do they work? Are there unintended lulz that were supposed to be dramatic?

Anthony Hopkins

...is the only reason I wanted to see Nixon, and have no interest in seeing W. Every movie Oliver Stone has done since the end of the '80s has just been further proof of Oliver Stone's increasing insanity.

...is the only reason I wanted to see Nixon, and have no interest in seeing W. Every movie Oliver Stone has done since the end of the '80s has just been further proof of Oliver Stone's increasing insanity.

It is true that there is no movie with Anthony Hopkins in it not worth watching.

I wish I could bring something to this discussion. Alas, I didn't watch any of these films.

However I'm skeptical about how comedic it is. Are there any scenes that intentionally strive for humor? Do they work? Are there unintended lulz that were supposed to be dramatic?

There are a number of scenes that are humorous, but in complete tongue-and-cheek fashion; none exaggerate Bush's character for effect. There are some dramatic spots, but nothing as intense as in Nixon. It is a much lighter film to be enjoyed in a light mood.

...is the only reason I wanted to see Nixon, and have no interest in seeing W. Every movie Oliver Stone has done since the end of the '80s has just been further proof of Oliver Stone's increasing insanity.

Hopkins is superb. Nixon is (in my humble opinion) easily the best of Stone's films.

Hopkins is superb. Nixon is (in my humble opinion) easily the best of Stone's films.

While I doubt it can top Platoon, I may need to see it.

While I doubt it can top Platoon, I may need to see it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cCPzGRIHMM