‘ ‘ ‘ I’m sure you’re all chewing your fingernails to a pulp waiting for the movie that is… ‘ ‘ ‘ I’m sure you’re all chewing your fingernails to a pulp waiting for the movie that is being released next month. I am speaking of neither the Marky Mark-goes-gamer-nerd fantasy ‘Max Payne’ nor the shining ‘Beverly Hills Chihuahua,’ a movie which will doubtlessly spark a wave of never-before-seen anti-Disney violence. ‘ ‘ ‘ Actually, I am referring to Oliver Stone’s new epic, ‘W.’ In case you were unaware of this upcoming release, please take a moment to soak it in. Yes, it’s about George W. Bush. ‘ ‘ ‘ I am not here, though, to lament Stone’s bombast or gall in taking up such a project. Stone’s ‘Any Given Sunday’ and ‘Alexander’ are far more perfect targets for this criticism than any successive film of his could ever be. I am not going to gnash my teeth and moan about how unfortunately political the film might be or how unfairly apolitical it might be otherwise. ‘ ‘ ‘ Instead, I am taking umbrage with the fact that the film is being universally described as humanizing. Both the studio and critics are scrambling to detail just how human the film makes Bush and why the lame duck deserves this treatment. ‘ ‘ ‘ Such a tactic is by no means a new one for Stone ‘mdash; see his 1995 ‘Nixon’ ‘mdash; but that does not mean it is an entirely benign one. Sure, looking at the personal life of a public figure can be edifying, but what does it mean to humanize them, and what are the side effects? ‘ ‘ ‘ The prickly side of humanization is that it always succeeds in creating exactly what it aims to undo: mythology. The driving force behind the will to humanize is the idea that a sufficiently capable artist can cut through the mythic pomp around a figure and sketch out what the man is like rather than the legend. ‘ ‘ ‘ However, something covert goes on behind the scenes of this seemingly attractive strategy. To make it your explicit task to humanize a person is implicitly to suggest that such a figure needs humanization. A project of humanization confers on its subject mythic status. ‘ ‘ ‘ Saying that Stone’s ‘W.’ humanizes Bush is tantamount to arguing that all other portrayals of Bush in the media do not accomplish this feat. Such a claim is not terribly wrong in cases of a historical figure like Alexander the Great or a more-than-famous celebrity such as Marlon Brando. However, we are talking about a man whose very human faults have been plastered all over the national media for eight years. ‘ ‘ ‘ Mythology surrounds chiseled Greek warriors, not poorly articulated good ol’ boys. The humanizing objective of Stone’s biopic is to convince us that we see Bush as a face of evil in a 10-gallon hat or some other mythic character. The danger is that the media are very good at convincing us. Bush is dangerous enough. Do we really want to allow him to be made mythic? ‘ ‘ ‘ An additional problem with humanization is that it is ultimately a failed enterprise. Not only do humanizing works mythologize public figures, but they also support the myth that it is possible to make a public figure into just another person. This is impossible by the sheer fact that the ordinary person does not have one of the biggest directors in Hollywood attach his name to his story and pour $30 million into the endeavor. ‘ ‘ ‘ To say that your film humanizes a figure is to do nothing more than try to win audiences over subtly to believe that your version of a person’s life is an authentic one. It is just a new myth in sheep’s clothing. ‘ ‘ ‘ But what is the actual danger of this whole mess? Mythology is not problematic in itself, so why should a new myth be anything to worry about? The issue is twofold. First, most myths identify themselves as myth, and we can then deal with them accordingly. There is not too much doubt about the mythic status of Hercules. When we read about a man who could hold the world on his shoulders, no one claims that any man that we might encounter in the world could similarly perform this task. ‘ ‘ ‘ Humanizing films construct myths that their subjects are larger-than-life without letting viewers know that what they are watching is a myth. I am not saying that audiences cannot separate Hollywood from reality but that audiences cannot separate the images they have of public figures that they develop for themselves from the one that the media instill in them. ‘ ‘ ‘ And second, traditional myths are products of a collective culture. The myths that humanizing movies create are products of a few men and their crew. When culture is creating myth, there is some democratic filter. In film, we lose control. ‘ ‘ ‘ The take-home message: When you go to see ‘W.’, or, more likely, when you stay home from the theater, keep a keen eye on the myth you are being sold. Take humanization with a grain of salt and demand a say in your mythology. E-mail Erik at [email protected] and keep his myth alive.