Josh Brolin and the man he will portray in W, George Bush. Photograph: Getty/Reuters
Naturally one must never judge a film by its poster, but ... oh what the hell, let's do it anyway. Not so long ago, Oliver Stone was swearing up and down that his forthcoming George W Bush biopic would present "a fair, true portrait of the man" that would "contain surprises for Bush supporters and for his detractors". Now along comes the teaser poster, which suggests the finished product might not be (to quote the estimable Fox News) as "fair and balanced" as he pitched it.
The poster for W (subtitled "the improbable president") basically gives us a greatest hits package of Bushisms. These run the gamut from the president's proud statement, "I'm honoured to shake the hand of a brave Iraqi citizen who had his hand cut off by Saddam Hussein" to his touching salute to the American family as a place "where wings take dream". It makes for a good read, though it does imply that W: The Movie might be taking a somewhat irreverent approach to the life and times of the 43rd president. (It could have been worse, of course. The poster might have shown a mock-up of Bush, soaked in blood, cackling maniacally and literally shaking the severed hand of a brave Iraqi citizen.)
We shall have to wait until November to see how representative the teaser turns out to be. But the evidence suggests it speaketh the truth. Yes, they are adverts and therefore evil - and yet I can't help feeling that posters tend to be more honest, earthy and straight-talking than, say, your average movie trailer. Why might this be so?
Have a look at this recent gallery of classic posters. Some of them are impressionistic (check the images for Vertigo, Straw Dogs or Taxi Driver). Some of them are brutally to the point, such as the ones for Hard Candy, The Graduate or Jaws (an image weirdly - and surely intentionally - echoed in the Titanic poster). And yet all of them stand as a pretty accurate reflection of the tone, style and content of the picture they're plugging.
So I wonder: do film posters ever actively lie? Where are the ones that bear absolutely no relation to the movie in question, that peddle a false impression, that suggest the marketing department has no idea what it is they're dealing with? We need to find these culprits fast, if only to prove the theory wrong. Otherwise we will be forced to conclude that it's not the W poster that's lying, it's Oliver Stone. And that, of course, would never do.
.png?w=600)
