Add Rob Corddry to the ‘W’ Column
Casting news for Oliver Stone’s upcoming George Bush movie W has been dribbling out over the last few weeks and I’ve kept quiet about it because I don’t like Stone that much and I’m not that interested in a movie about our current president just now.
Nevertheless, so far we’ve got Josh Brolin as George, Elizabeth Banks as Laura, James Cromwell as George H.W, Ellen Burstyn as Barbara, Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice and Ioan Gruffudd as Tony Blair.
This afternoon MTV reports that The Daily Show’s Rob Corddry will be playing White House press secretary/weasel Ari Fleischer.
Jeff Wells, who has had something to say about every W casting tidbit, insists that this isn’t going to be a comedy, but I almost wish it was, especially with Corddry on board.
Filed under: News, Upcoming
Related Posts: - ‘Burn After’ Reviewing
- QT’s FP!K!K! - LiC says: BS
- ‘Last Crusade’ Really the Last for Connery
- To Cannes or Not to Cannes?
- ‘Quantum’ Theme: Another Way to Die
Comedy or not, I still think this movie is being made way before it should be. I don’t see a real reason why Stone needs to make this right now. Put it on hold, wait until Bush is out of office for a few years, and only then MAYBE. I think this should be made for people who haven’t lived through his reign of terror but for our grandchildren or great grandchildren. And then they’ll all ask us why did we just sit back and let this man steal the presidency twice in a row? Why didn’t we do anything when he declared war? This movie might be appropriate then. But certainly not now.
And I share you feelings on Stone. One of the most awkward gifts I’ve ever received was his box set with all of his movies. My mother knew I was a film lover and she managed a video store at the time. She got it used from some guy and gave it to me for Christmas. Man, I felt horrible but the only thing I could do was sell it off. Never told her about it. I just hope she doesn’t come over one day and say, “Hey, I’m really in the mood to watch Born On The Fourth Of July.”
Elizabeth Banks as Laura and Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice.
On what planet do either of those actresses look anything like their real-world counterparts? Man, this movie is one of the weirdest projects in a long time from Hollywood.
Heh heh, nice anecdote, Justin.
“Hey, I’m really in the mood to watch Born On The Fourth Of July.” are not words I would expect from anyone, least of all anyone’s mother.
Thank you, Justin. In your first paragraph you said everything exactly the way it needed to be said. Nice anecdote, too. :-)
I posted on the Hollywood Reporter story about the script yesterday, too. It sounds ridiculous. I had the same reactions to the cast as you, Joel. This whole thing is becoming more and more laughable.
Why now? Because once the actual historical record is out, it will be harder to present “The Oliver Stone version of history.” JFK only encouraged him. Although I actually like Nixon.
Rob Corddry is an interesting choice, not what I would have expected at all. But I’ll offer a bit of dissent here in that I’m really looking forward to this. A lot. I just hope Stone doesn’t turn it into a farce.
It has great potential.
Yeah, I hadn’t heard of Elizabeth Banks as Laura - maybe in twenty years, but that’s Hollywood for you.
I have faith in Stone, he has a tendency to cast recognizable faces in order to help with issues of exposition/data overload. ‘Who’s that guy talking about Afghanistan?’ ‘I don’t know, but he was in Fantastic Four, so pay attention’.
“Hey, I’m really in the mood to watch Born On The Fourth Of July.” Ahahahah. I’d get a new mom.
Full disclosure: Until World Trade Center, I hadn’t actually watched an Oliver Stone film in YEARS. He’s equal parts interesting and infuriating. I’ve been meaning to go back and rewatch his filmmography and re-evaluate my opinion of him, but I’ve just never gotten it off the ground.
I hated Born on the Fourth of July fiercely. I didn’t even like Platoon all that much. Heresy, I know.
While I’m undecided on W, I must vigorously disagree with Craig’s view of Born on the 4th of July. I loved it fiercely and thought it should have won best picture over Driving Miss Daisy (yech!). Platoon, I liked but it didn’t speak to me as much.
Yes, indeed, Craig, you’re views are heresy ;-) and you know what we do with heretics ;-)?
I admit I haven’t seen many of Stone’s recent films. I think the last one was Any Given Sunday, which had good and bad.
Oliver Stone the director’s biggest problem is Oliver Stone the blowhard nutjob, but because he plays the blowhard nutjob in the media, I think the spectacle keeps him working. I think technically he’s got some talent, but I think he’s very hit-and-miss as a storyteller. He has a tendency to paint stories in block letters with loud colors and lots of obvious messages. It can overwhelming to watch. He has become such a caricature of himself in the last ten years that I question his relevance as a filmmaker and an artist. He suffers from the same issues that Michael Moore does: his personna has come to completely overshadow his work.
I haven’t seen Born on the Fourth of July since its theatrical run and at the time, I had a lot of respect and admiration for Stone the director but I still didn’t like the movie much at all. Sorry Elessar, I’m with Craig on this one.
I do like Platoon though I have more issues with it now that I originally did.
Ironically, I find Platoon incredibly overrated, always have, and I guess always will. Seemingly everyone outside Charlie Sheen is a caricature of one kind or another with almost zero nuance whatsoever. (The reason Willem Dafoe gives a strong performance as the “good” sergeant isn’t because it’s a well-written part, it’s because he’s a fine actor who took what he had and made the absolute most of it.)
Born on the Fourth of July, I actually respect, though it seems to lose something with subsequent viewings.
So, interestingly enough, I find Stone’s Vietnam films excessively didactic and “false” despite Stone’s actual real-life history with that particular war. (Also interesting because he won his two Best Director Oscars for those two films.)
That said, warts and all, I think very highly of JFK and much more, Nixon, which I consider to be Stone’s one real masterpiece. That he kind of “remade” Citizen Kane by making that film probably has something to do with its undeniably strong foundation.
Post-Nixon, nothing he’s done has even remotely captured my interest.
If W is genuinely a vitriolic polemic mixed with a healthy dose of the kind of page-turning-inducing, potboiler-cum-political thriller and character-based drama, like JFK and even more so Nixon, it could be Stone’s return to form but if it’s just another half-baked, poorly-constructed and hollow stab in the dark like his work of the last twelve years, this has the potential to be something of a disaster, and a disaster many people will actually care about, unlike Alexander.
I think Justin is pretty much right that it’s too early to make a film on this subject. However, the one thing that makes me even slightly hopeful is that Stone said when World Trade Center was released that the film he really wanted to make was how the Bush administration used 9/11 to implement their crusade for democracy in the Islamic world. So, as long as Stone’s gloves finally come off again, I’ll at least be interested.
“and a disaster many people will actually care about, unlike Alexander.”
Cheer up Alexander, we at LiC care about you even if you are a disaster.
I love Natural Born Killers and U Turn. And rate highly many of his other films - Talk Radio, Salvadore, Platoon, JFK, and Nixon. Sunday is among the best sports films I’ve seen. Wall Street was an important cultural event for its time.
The guy ain’t no hack and boasts a filmography most filmmakers could only dream of. That said, his off-screen persona is another matter. I wonder whether it has the effect of exaggerating people’s sense of his limitations as an artist? Because the criticism directed towards his personality is arguably less evident in the films themselves. Just my two cents.
“Cheer up Alexander, we at LiC care about you even if you are a disaster.”
Aww. ;-)
Actually, sartre, I agree that Stone is by no means a hack in the least and his filmography is, despite his recent misadventures, one most directors would love to have. And though I probably gave a different impression because of my coolness towards Platoon, I regard his run from Salvador through Nixon quite highly, with some films being significantly better than others. I do occasionally despair at how far I think he’s fallen since Nixon, though. Any Given Sunday was watchable but not repeatable, kind of like World Trade Center, for me.
I hope W is his comeback film but I can’t say I’m terribly excited about it at this juncture.
My observations were in response to the general criticism of Stone’s work, Alexander.
I’m not holding out great hope for W. But I’m impressed with the quality of people being attracted to the project.
I also have the “it’s too soon” reflex response given, as Justin pointed out, we’re still living through Bush’s reign of terror. But then again, if Jon Stewart and the Daily Show can make me laugh in what feels like a helpful and sometimes enlightening way about the Texan halfwit and his cohorts, then maybe the concept might just work.
But isn’t the concept to make it serious and dramatic? I think that’s the problem I have with it. It’s going to end up being goofy either way - might as well make that the point of it and just cast Will Ferrell.
Is that right Daniel? Oops, I’m completely on the wrong track here. I read some lines from the script cited somewhere online and they seemed to go with broad black comedy. Sorry :-)
Well, as many others online have noted, arguably the only way to judiciously deal with this administration is to go straight-up Dr. Strangelove-like bitter and icy satire with it.
The thing that made the film Nixon work is that Stone made it clear that no matter what you think of Richard M. Nixon, he was a man of great talents, with an excellent command of history. He was also perhaps one of the most successful American statesmen ever. You read a book Nixon wrote, and you see a really complex mind at work. (His book The Real War about the Cold War is the most convincing subtly hawkish-but-measured take on the struggle with the USSR I’ve yet read.) The point of Nixon the film was that in spite of all that, he was brought down by hubris, paranoia and insecurity.
Therefore, the film Nixon was a great tragedy. Nixon was brought down by his flaws and as in Greek tragedy he had to see all of his friends, and his family members suffer as a result along with him.
Bush isn’t a tragic figure. His presidency is a twisted funhouse mirror–the most lethally laughable joke. If he was running a baseball team these days like the Texas Rangers we could all giggle at his incompetence. As it is, the whole thing can only be seen as a tragedy if it’s taken from the viewpoint of the dangerous ideologues who surrounded Bush and gleefully urged him to pursue their agenda. If it’s from Bush’s perspective, the only legitimate way to tackle it in a dramatic fashion would be to make the film inherently maddening, forcing the audience to see the Iraq War, the insanely reckless inflationary policies, the destruction of civil liberties… as grand successes. Which, if pushed just far enough, could make for a good comedy as well.