29-10-2008, 01:14 PM
Nixon is well worth the watching.
If you don't expect mere mimicry from Anthony Hopkins, you'll have an advantage going in.
It has been downhill for Stone since. W. is, from the standpoint of storytelling, an unmitigated disaster. This in spite of Josh Brolin's star turn in the title role.
The narrative is misshapen -- and that's being generous, insofar as the effort to detect even the faintest of story arc/contours in this travesty would test the mettle of a Joseph Campbell.
The only possible defense of W. -- and I'm stretching to the breaking point -- is that Stone chose to depict banality by recreating it.
Oooooh ... how postmodern!
Of course this ultimately doesn't wash; artistic depiction of chaos must be ordered for it to be artistic.
(I know you're out there, dadaists, so post away and I'll translate.)
If you don't expect mere mimicry from Anthony Hopkins, you'll have an advantage going in.
It has been downhill for Stone since. W. is, from the standpoint of storytelling, an unmitigated disaster. This in spite of Josh Brolin's star turn in the title role.
The narrative is misshapen -- and that's being generous, insofar as the effort to detect even the faintest of story arc/contours in this travesty would test the mettle of a Joseph Campbell.
The only possible defense of W. -- and I'm stretching to the breaking point -- is that Stone chose to depict banality by recreating it.
Oooooh ... how postmodern!
Of course this ultimately doesn't wash; artistic depiction of chaos must be ordered for it to be artistic.
(I know you're out there, dadaists, so post away and I'll translate.)