Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (1)

 1 of 3

George W. Bush: Faith in the White House Our rating: Your rating: 1 2 3 4 Your Comments: see all MPAA rating: Not Rated by Grizzly Adams Productions Directed by: David Priest Runtime: 1 hour 10 minutes Cast: Janet Parshall (narrator) Related: Talk About It/Family Corner

In many ways, George W. Bush: Faith in the White House lives up to its title. The 70-minute documentary, released to Christian bookstores this week and eyeing a possible network TV primetime slot in September, is indeed an informative and inspiring look at the faith that drives our President.

The film, from Grizzly Adams Productions, is based primarily on two recent best-sellers—Tom Freiling's George W. Bush: On God and Country (Allegiance Press/FaithWorks) and David Aikman's A Man of Faith: The Spiritual Journey of George W. Bush (W Publishing Group). Numerous interviews with Bush experts, advisers and observers—many of them evangelicals—are spread throughout the piece, giving it credibility.

We see not only Bush's faith in its current form—a man driven by prayer and the principles of Scripture—but we also see his journey along the way, warts and all. We meet a much younger Bush, a rowdy, brash, hard-drinking Texan who in no way looked like he would some day be his state's governor, much less President of the United States.

We learn about the heritage of faith passed down from his parents, and how Dubya turned his back on that faith for many years before finally coming back to it—thanks, in large part, to Billy Graham's regular summer visits to the family vacation home in Kennebunkport, Maine. On one of those visits, during a walk on the beach, Graham pointedly asked Bush if he was "right with God." Bush responded, "No, but I want to be." And the rest, as they say, is history.

A number of people offer their takes on Bush and his faith, including authors Freiling and Aikman, noted above; James Robison, a religious broadcaster and a close Bush friend; Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals; and Don Hodel, who served in the Reagan Administration and is now President/CEO of Focus on the Family. These, and others, provide even more insight and perspective into the President, his spiritual life, his resolve, his servant leadership. It's revealing and inspiring.

Neither Bush nor the First Lady are interviewed for the documentary—the independent film was made without their knowledge—but we see plenty of videotaped clips of both.

We also "hear" from a number of Bush critics, though they're never seen talking onscreen. These critics—including Ralph Nader, Richard Gere, Al Franken, and Barry Lynn—are typically represented with a mug shot and the text of a quote, which is read aloud by a narrator. The problem is that all of these quotes are read with a tone that's dripping with sarcasm, spite, malice. Obviously, these critics aren't Bush fans, but I'll bet they didn't all sound like whiny, sniveling punks in the real sound bytes. The quote from Barry Lynn, for example, was excerpted from a public testimony before a Senate subcommittee; why not just run the tape?

The film also uses cheesy "dramatic re-enactments" to illustrate key moments throughout Bush's life that weren't caught on tape. These scenes also sometimes leave the viewer scratching his head, wondering what's "real" and what's staged. For example, there's a re-enactment of Billy Graham talking to a younger Bush; the camera looks over Graham's shoulder at an actor who's playing Bush—but the actor looks like he is a member of the Bush family. My wife even asked, "Is that Jeb?"—referring to the President's younger brother, now Florida's governor. It was so distracting that we missed some 20 or 30 seconds of narration while we talked aloud while trying to discern if it actually was a Bush or not. We finally deduced that it wasn't—and rewound the DVD to pick up what we'd missed.

But the film's biggest problem is in the way it's being promoted. The DVD cover—and a number of press materials—bills it as "An Alternative Program to Fahrenheit 9/11"—referring, of course, to Michael Moore's recent Bush-bashing documentary.

I'm assuming they chose the word "alternative" carefully, rather than something like "response" or "rebuttal," because the film doesn't come close to being a rebuttal to Moore's charges. Indeed, never in the 70 minutes is Michael Moore or Fahrenheit 9/11 mentioned by name. There's no hint of a response to Moore's criticism of the Bush Administration's reasons for invading Iraq. And the film almost completely dodges the question of whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which Bush had said was one of the main reasons for the invasion.

next page... |  1 of 3 | last page